Ancient Forest Alliance campaigner and photographer TJ Watt stands amongst giant trees along a trail in Cathedral Grove.

Earth Day Inspires Environmental Actions Around the World

Many Earth Day events throughout the world are focused on trees and forests.

In Western Canada, conservationists are calling on the British Columbia government to expand protection around MacMillan Provincial Park to fully encompass the forests above and adjacent to the world-famous Cathedral Grove.
Cathedral Grove

Cathedral Grove is Canada’s most popular old-growth forest on Vancouver Island, visited by millions of tourists each year, but the company Island Timberlands has built a road through old-growth forests on Mt. Horne, the mountainside above Cathedral Grove, and could potentially begin logging of a new cutblock that could come as close as 300 meters from the park boundary.

“After the redwoods of California, Cathedral Grove is the best known old-growth forest on Earth,” said Ken Wu, Ancient Forest Alliance executive director. “It should be a first rate priority for the BC government to stop any logging plans that threaten the park’s ecological integrity and ancient forest that millions of people visit.”

“The BC government deregulated the environmental protections on this land in 2004 and failed to follow-through on an agreement that was supposed to protect the old-growth forests on those lands. They broke it, now they have a responsibility to fix it,” said Wu. “The expansion of protected areas around Cathedral Grove, the scenic highway, Cameron Lake, and the Cathedral Grove Canyon will make this a world-class protected area, both ecologically and for tourism.”

[Environment News Service article no longer available]

Forum urges residents to Stand Up for forests

The Stand Up for the North Committee hosted a forum on Saturday to voice concerns about the current state of forest management in B.C., and proposed changes to the forest tenure system.

Approximately 200 people came out to hear from First Nations, labour leaders, forestry policy analyst Anthony Britneff and noted environmentalist Vicky Husband.

Britneff is a former senior forester with the B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range. He retired in 2010 after 40 years with the agency, and has been speaking out about what he calls “a perfect storm of mismanagement.”

Britneff said the provincial government slashed funding for the B.C. Forest Service -reducing the number of district offices from 42 to 21 and eliminating over 1,000 jobs – between 2001 and 2010.

“Most programs were cut so badly departments are now dysfunctional,” Britneff said.

And on Jan. 31, 2004 the Forests and Range Practices Act came into effect, he which further cut legal oversight of forestry companies in favour of relying on forestry professionals employed by forestry companies.

On March 24, NDP forestry critic Norm Macdonald questioned the why Canfor and West Fraser were able to over harvest almost a million cubic metres of healthy trees not effected by the mountain pine beetle in the Morice Timber Supply Area between 2008 and 2013.

Britneff said the companies are still operating in the Morice area and have basically gotten away with a slap on the wrist.

“In 2012 185 per cent of the partition [in the Morice TSA] was harvested – the spruce, balsam… that's your midterm timber supply. How can forest professionals hold companies accountable if over harvesting is lawful?” he said. “The Forest Practices Board is only mandated to audit based on provincial law. Let me assure you, your forests are not sustainably managed- the law does not allow it.”

These changes happened at the same time the province was dealing with the single largest impact of climate change the province has felt: the mountain pine beetle epidemic, he said.

“In 2008, the chief forester asked for a report on climate change. It was done in March, 2009,” he said.

The report, which was not widely distributed, concluded that timber supply would be significantly impacted by tree deaths caused by diseases, competition from foreign species moving in and climatic factors, he said. Little action was taken on the plan, Britneff added.

“The forestry ministry now uses the science of convenience,” he said.

On April 1, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Minister Steven Thomson announced a public consultation on a proposal to increase area-based tenures and tree farm licences. The consultation runs until May 30.

“This process is not a public consultation at all. It's the government asking for feedback on what it plans to do,” he said.

The goal of switching to an area-based system or tree farm system is that companies would have more incentive to invest in sylviculture and management of areas that they have exclusive harvesting rights too. Under the current system, the majority of forest tenures are volume-based -meaning companies have the right to harvest a certain amount of wood from a particular Timber Supply Area.

“I must be fair on the quality of management of tree farms, the quality varies,” Britneff said.

However, tree farms have the highest rate of waste of any of the management categories in the province, he said.

“Tree farm licences are not the way to go. The [tree farm licence] rollover is about privatizing profits, but socializing the costs,” he said.

The province subsidizes tree farm operators' costs of fire management – if the fire starts in adjacent public forest – road construction and other costs, he said.

Husband, who has received the Order of Canada and Order of B.C. for her environmental advocacy, said B.C.'s forests should be managed as ecosystems -not just as trees to be harvested for profit.

“Really we haven't managed our public ecosystems well. I've done some work on the [Atlantic] cod fishery. The cod fishery was the most productive in the world, and we killed it,” she said. “I'm afraid we're doing the same to our forests.”

Even though tree farm licensees are supposed to allow recreational access through their areas, there is plenty of gates and lack of access when tree farm licenses are issued, she said.

“We have a lot of experiences with tree farms on the coast, and it's not good. It is the privatization of our forests,” she said. “The timber comes first and nothing else matters.”

Keeping public forests public is a start, she said, and then enforcement of the current rules needs to be enhanced until stronger regulations can be drafted.

“We have an unenforceable forest act… none of the ecological values are being protected either,” she said. “There is nobody looking after the public interest.”

The number of field inspections conducted by forestry staff dropped from more than 25,000 in 2002 to less than 8,200 in 2012, she said- and a special report by the Forest Practices Board last year said field inspections have continued to decline since then.

Peter Ewert, spokesperson for the Stand Up for the North committee, said the long-term health of the forest is critical to communities in the North reliant on the forestry industry.

“We are here today because we are concerned,” Ewert said. “There are many problems facing the forest and the forestry industry. Problems that are not being addressed by the powers that be. There is a growing sentiment out there in B.C. that we want more control at the local level on what is happening to our forests.”

Read more: https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local/forum-urges-residents-to-stand-up-for-forests-1.954718

Playing with words regarding Tree Farm Licences

When Alice met Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll’s famous book “Alice in Wonderland,” Humpty informed her rather scornfully that “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean.” And so goes the Ministry of Forests with its repeated use of the term “Area-based Forest Tenures” in its Discussion Paper and on its public consultation website.

Again and again, it is highlighted on the Ministry website that the issue is all about converting volume-based tenure into area-based tenure to address the timber supply problem in the province. Now, there are a number of types of area-based tenure in British Columbia, including Community Forest Agreements, Woodlot Licences, and First Nations Woodland Licences, all of which have some popular support throughout the province. But it is a mistake to think the Ministry is actually referring to these when it is talking about rolling over existing forest licences into Area-based Forest Tenures.

When you drill down past all the headings and references to Area-based Forest Tenures on the Ministry’s website and in its Discussion Paper, it becomes clear that what the Ministry is proposing is a rollover of volume-based licences into one particular – and highly controversial – type of area-based tenure, i.e. Tree Farm Licences (TFLs).

So, rather than a Discussion Paper on Area-based Forest Tenures, the Discussion Paper could be more accurately described as a Discussion Paper promoting the benefits of Tree Farm Licences and defining the criteria for rollover to these TFLs. However, in this case, the Ministry appears to have followed Humpty Dumpty’s lead by claiming that words only mean whatever it chooses them to mean.

Why go to all this trouble? Why confound the terms and cause confusion? Why not make it crystal clear, with no ambiguity, that this whole exercise is about TFLs alone? Well, Tree Farm Licences have always been controversial in BC. Just last year, the Minister of Forests tried to push through legislation allowing for large-scale conversion of existing timber licenses into TFLs. Many in the province felt that this move would be a giveaway to the investors and shareholders of a few big companies at the expense of other sectors of the forest industry, First Nations and the population as a whole. In the face of widespread opposition, the Forest Minister was forced to withdraw the legislation.

But what you can’t push through under one label, try another. Thus we have the phrase “area-based forest tenures” peppered throughout the Ministry press release, website and Discussion Paper. In so doing, it appears to want to shift the debate away from a focus on TFLs to the more general (and less controversial) topic of volume-based tenures versus area-based tenures.

But, as revealed in a leaked confidential cabinet document in April of 2013 (after the initial TFL legislation was withdrawn), the Ministry’s intentions have remained the same – convert at least some of the existing forest licences in the province into TFLs. The only thing that has changed from last year has been the method of selling that conversion and the terminology.

The Ministry also wants to shift the debate away from the much more pressing issue of public oversight and proper forest management. No matter whether it is volume-based or area-based tenures, we need rigorous and professional public oversight of our forests. Yet the provincial government has slashed hundreds of jobs in forestry inspection and science. As a result, our forests are in terrible shape with lack of reforestation, overharvesting, incomplete inventory and environmental degradation rampant.

These are facts that all the Humpty Dumpty wordplay in the world cannot hide. And more TFLs will not provide a remedy.

[250 News article no longer available]

B.C. announces plans to revamp its timber supply system for forestry firms

VICTORIA — Forests Minister Steve Thomson says the Liberal government is taking another shot at giving forest companies more rights to control British Columbia's public forest lands, but he rejects criticism that the plan would privatize provincial forests.

The move could dramatically change the way public forests are managed by granting lumber companies tenure rights, or logging rights, to large pieces of land. Companies are currently allotted timber harvest rights on a specified numbers of trees.

The proposed changes prompted immediate scorn from an environmental group and skepticism from the Opposition New Democrats.

“We're going to go totally to the wall over this one,” said Ancient Forest Alliance spokesman Ken Wu. “The large forest companies have too long been special interest groups over our public forest lands.”

Plans to amend the Forest Act last year to move towards area-based tenures were dumped after a public outcry.

Thomson announced a consultation program Tuesday that will consider public and industry opinion over converting forest land management to area-based tenures from its current volume-based tenure system.

The minister said area-based tenures will not be provincewide, moving only to areas where there is public approval.

He appointed Jim Snetsinger, a former B.C. chief forester, to oversee a two-month consultation process, with a report and recommendations due June 30. Snetsinger will hold public hearings in 10 communities.

Forest tenures or licences are agreements between the government and a person or company to provide logging rights on Crown land. Tenure holders must make payments to the government for timber harvested on Crown land.

Thomson said moving to area-based tenures will give forest companies more certainty over the land on which they harvest timber. He said the government still owns the land, but the companies would have long-term management rights.

“This only gives them timber-harvesting rights to the area as they currently have with volume-based licences,” he said. “This is not privatization and not transferring rights to that area to the land holder other than those harvesting rights.”

Thomson said last March when the Liberals shelved the changes that they require broader public consultation.

Wu said the only certainty British Columbians can expect from land-based tenures for forest companies is environmental destruction.

Opposition NDP forests critic Norm Macdonald said he understands why companies want to control forest land, but the government will have a tough time convincing the public to support the changes.

“Why the public would buy into this is beyond me,” he said. “They have not made the case that this is for the public good. If this is a sales job, that's a problem.”

Read more: https://www.theprovince.com/business/announces+plans+revamp+timber+supply+system+forestry+firms/9687518/story.html

B.C. government reopens timber rights talks

Forests Minister Steve Thomson has reopened talks on giving forest companies exclusive access to timber rights on some public lands.

A year ago, widespread opposition forced Thomson to withdraw related legislation after critics warned that it would give companies too much control.

This time, Thomson is launching a two-month consultation process led by retired civil servant and former chief forester Jim Snetsinger.

Thomson said the government wants to get the public’s input on its plan to convert some volume-based licences to new or expanded area-based licences.

Volume-based licences allow multiple companies to cut trees in a specific timber supply area. Area-based tenures, also known as tree farm licences, give companies exclusive access to the trees in an area.

The government argues that TFLs provide licence-holders with “increased certainty” of timber supply and encourage them to make long-term investments in sawmills and silviculture.

“This, in turn, can provide stability for workers and the community,” states a government discussion paper.

Thomson said the government is considering the change as way to deal with a declining timber supply in the Interior caused by the mountain pine beetle epidemic.

But critics argue that giving forest companies increased control over Crown land spells disaster for the environment and makes it more difficult to settle First Nations treaties.

“When companies say they want greater certainty over the land base, what they mean is greater certainty against conservation measures and treaty settlement,” said Ken Wu, executive director of the Ancient Forest Alliance. “There’s a lot of other users and a lot of other values on those lands besides large-scale logging.”

NDP forests critic Norm Macdonald said there is no evidence that allowing exclusive rights in a timber area benefits anyone other than the big forest companies, many of whom are major donors to the B.C. Liberal Party.

“I get why the private companies want it and I don’t begrudge them at all,” he said. “But why the public would buy into this is beyond me. They have not made the case that it’s for the public good.”

Macdonald said the public, in fact, will lose some of the control it has to protect wildlife and the environment on lands where companies have exclusive access to the timber. “It’s not a total privatization, that’s true,” he said. “But there’s no question you’ve given up greater property rights and, therefore, you’ve given up complete control of that land.”

Thomson said the government’s vision is that companies would be given exclusive access only in areas where there is support and a strong case for doing so. “We’re not contemplating conversions on a provincewide basis, but rather on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

Thomson said he wants to hear from the public what types of benefits the companies should provide in exchange, and what criteria should be used to evaluate applications.

“Before any company would be invited to an application, they would have to be able to demonstrate the public interest and the values under which they’re doing that,” he said.

The public consultation process concludes on May 30. Snetsinger will submit a final report at the end of June.

Thomson declined to provide a timeline for potential legislation.

“I think that would be pre-judging the outcome of the process and pre-judging the recommendations that [Snetsinger] will bring forward,” he said.

Read more: https://www.timescolonist.com/business/b-c-government-reopens-timber-rights-talks-1.939094

Timber companies can’t see the consequences for the trees

British Columbia is in the midst of an unprecedented and unsustainable salvage operation in its interior forests because of the attack of the mountain pine beetle.

And yet, when two of the province’s biggest forestry companies were caught going into those woods and cutting truckloads of healthy green timber meant for future harvests, Forests Minister Steve Thomson’s reaction was as mild as a milk-sated kitten.

After forestry-ministry staff raised alarms, Mr. Thomson signed an order that could have led to hefty penalties for Canfor and West Fraser for taking greenwood in an area where they were supposed to be targeting the dead and dying pine.

In defiance of the chief forester’s order, set down in February, 2008, the two companies overcut 928,000 cubic metres worth of healthy trees in the Morice Timber Supply Area, around the community of Houston, in B.C.’s northwest.

But the minister’s order was rescinded after the companies – both heavy contributors to the governing B.C. Liberal party – agreed to behave. The past is forgiven, no need for consequences.

“I had concerns about the trend we were starting to notice. We looked at the potential for the order. We got the commitments from the companies to operate within harvest management plans,” Mr. Thomson said in an interview.

“The plans are being closely monitored.”

It is because of the dwindling supply of timber that West Fraser is shutting down its Houston sawmill. Just weeks ago, Canfor permanently closed its Quesnel mill for the same reason.

Between the pine beetle and over-harvesting, the chief forester is expected to dramatically reduce the annual allowable cut in the region.

The provincial government has swept in and helped communities in the pine beetle zone, notably Mackenzie and Burns Lake, by securing exclusive timber supply in recent years. But it can’t do that everywhere – there simply won’t be enough trees to sustain even the region’s current, already curtailed, level of industry.

The alarm was raised last week in a special report from the Forest Practices Board, which has found that companies have shifted from harvesting dead pine trees to live non-pine trees that had been earmarked for the future.

“British Columbia is in the midst of a large-scale salvage program, the likes of which has never been seen,” the report says.

“There is nothing sustainable about this harvest; this is a one-time activity initiated by the province to recover value from the trees killed by the mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic and to speed regeneration of affected areas … The issue, simply put, is that the more live trees that are harvested now, the lower the sustainable harvest level will be after the salvage program is finished.”

In the same report, the board, B.C.’s independent watchdog for forest practices, also warns the government really doesn’t know how much timber is left to salvage. “There is a growing disparity between government’s estimate of the amount of salvageable timber and the actual economically viable timber available on the ground.”

And it is, clearly, just an estimate. The B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union says the forest ministry’s compliance and enforcement program conducts a third of the number of inspections of forest operations compared with a decade ago. And a recent report from the Professional Employees Association also warns that the number of licensed science officers, including foresters, has dropped by 15 per cent in the past five years.

NDP forestry critic Norm Macdonald said those cuts make it hard to detect overcutting, and signal to industry that there is little intent to uphold the rules. “The government has to accept responsibility – they have consciously chosen not to collect proper data, which [are] essential to properly manage the public lands,” he said in an interview. “And it means a much bigger problem in the future for communities’ stability.”

The future may not be far off. The chief forester is required only to set the annual allowable cut once every decade for each timber supply area. In this case, however, Mr. Thomson says he wants an update by the end of this year in the Morice Timber Supply Area. “I expect the review is going to show there will need to be adjustments, downward adjustments, in the annual allowable cut in those regions.”

Canfor and West Fraser will have little grounds to complain.

Read more: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/timber-companies-cant-see-the-consequences-for-the-trees/article17732435/

Overharvesting – Who is watching our forests?

It is an outrageous amount. According to a document from the Ministry of Forests that was recently brought to light in the provincial legislature (1), for the five years between 2008 – 2013, the forest company giants, Canfor and West Fraser, overcut 928,000 cubic metres of non-pine wood in the Morice Timber Supply Area (TSA), a region in north-western British Columbia. This overharvesting was done in direct violation of the Allowable Annual Cut (AAC), and is equivalent to about 23,000 logging truck loads of timber.

What is particularly galling is that, while this flagrant overcutting has been taking place, communities in the BC Interior have been facing dozens of mill closures and thousands of job losses in the wake of the pine beetle devastation of the forests and looming drop in the AAC. Having an adequate mid-term supply of non-pine wood is crucial to see the communities through this rough period, but it is precisely this mid-term supply that, in defiance of forestry regulation, Canfor and West Fraser targeted for severe overharvesting. Indeed, as part of a controversial timber swap with Canfor, West Fraser has since announced it would be closing its Houston mill in the Morice TSA by the summer of 2014.

The Morice TSA case raises the question: How much overharvesting has been going on in other Timber Supply Areas of the Interior? But to catch overharvesting and other violations of the Forest Act, oversight is needed from forestry inspectors and scientists. Unfortunately, the number of government forestry personnel has been dramatically slashed over the last decade in British Columbia.

In 2010, forestry analyst Ben Parfitt noted that the BC Forest Service had lost 1,006 positions or about a quarter of its workforce. Between 2001 and 2005 alone, field inspections fell by 46 per cent “opening the door to a range of potential abuses, including illegal logging and log theft, unmarked logs and therefore unpaid provincial stumpage fees, and environmentally destructive logging operations.” He further pointed out that, in Northeast BC, each forest service employee oversees an average of 232,240 hectares of land, compared to just 2,666 hectares of land for a US forest service employee (2).

The provincial government’s own Auditor General issued a devastating report in 2012 that sharply criticized the Ministry of Forests for its forest management, inspection and monitoring practices. The report noted that there had been a steady decline of forest practice inspections from over 31,000 in 2000/01 to about 15,000 in 2008/09. It concluded that “the ministry has not demonstrated whether its existing compliance and enforcement inspections are sufficiently robust to ensure industry compliance” (3).

In July of 2013, the Forest Practices Board weighed in with a Special Investigation of its own. It found that, since 2008/09, the number of inspections further plummeted from about 15,000 to less than 5,000 with only 2,800 of those focusing on harvesting and roads. It expressed concern that, with the “steep drop” in inspections and cuts to forest service staff, “licensees’ activities may not be inspected enough, particularly harvesting and road activities that pose a high risk of harm to resource values” (4).

The board also found that government figures regarding violations of the Forest Act and other statutory requirements were not accurate because they only took into account cases where actual enforcement actions had been taken, and did not include instances where warning tickets or non-compliance notices were issued.

Most recently, in March 2014, the Professional Employees Association released a report noting that the number of Licensed Science Officers working for the provincial government dropped by 15 percent between 2009 and 2014. For forestry science officers, the drop was even more dramatic – 27 percent.

The Association states that many technical reports used to make regulatory decisions are now being prepared by external consultants paid for by the companies. It argues that a significant number of these reports “included conclusions that were inappropriate due to incorrect or biased analyses,” and that, if left uncorrected, “would have resulted in regulatory decisions that favoured the regulated party [i.e. companies] and adversely impacted the environment.” Furthermore, as a result of staff cutbacks, much of the data regarding timber resource management and the health of the forests is no longer being collected.

The Association report concludes that professionally trained Licensed Science Officers “are the first-line stewards of B.C.’s natural resources and primary protectors of the safety of public infrastructure facilities.” Yet there are not enough of these experts to “adequately look after the interests of British Columbians” (5).

None of these reports inspire much confidence in the state of forestry oversight in the province of British Columbia. Especially with severe shortages of timber supply looming in some regions.

Oh, and what did happen to Canfor and West Fraser as a result of the 23,000 truckloads of timber they overharvested from 2008 to 2013? Were they prosecuted? Did they receive severe penalties of some kind?

Not quite. The Ministry did issue a penalty of triple stumpage for volume of timber illegally harvested. But there was a catch. It only applies to timber that may be illegally harvested in the future, i.e. it did not apply to the 2008-2013 period. In other words, the companies got away virtually scot-free. Even the Houston mill closure was not criticized or disputed.

There was one very feeble slap on the wrist. And that was a requirement that Canfor and West Fraser work with the Ministry on a plan that promises how, in the future, their harvesting will only “target the highest priority [timber] stands and protect the mid-term timber supply.”

So how much overharvesting has taken place in other Timber Supply Areas of the province? Can the Minister of Forests honestly say that he really knows, given the dramatic cutbacks in forest service staff and oversight? This is not a minor question given the increased pain that Interior communities will be feeling in the wake of dramatic AAC reductions.

We live in an era dominated by globalized corporations that continually lobby governments to reduce regulation and oversight. But what are the consequences? Without proper oversight, do British Columbia and its vast forests risk being reduced to the status of a squeezed lemon – to be thrown away once all the juice is extracted?

Comment: Forest, parks bills should be open to debate

Big changes are being discussed for the future of British Columbia’s parks and forests. Despite the impact of these changes, British Columbians are not being consulted.

On Feb. 25, two proposed bills, Bill 4 and Bill 5, entered their second reading and almost no one noticed. If passed, the two amendment bills — known as the Park Amendment Act and the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act — would adversely affect forest-based jobs and our protected areas network, which are anchors for the motto “Super Natural B.C.”

Buried within a 36-page document, Bill 5 looks to make what is being called an administrative change to speed up the process for the export of wood chips. In reality, this change is anything but simple and could have undesirable impacts for communities and those who work in the forest sector.

Forest Lands and Natural Resources Operations Minister Steve Thomson proposes an increase to the maximum amount of wood residue (wood chips) that the minister can permit for export from 5,000 bone-dry units to 200,000 bone-dry units.

Put plainly, the minister can currently approve the export of 217 double truckloads of wood chips in a single application without the requirement of an additional level of approval from cabinet. This balance and check ensures that all wood chip exports are, in fact, surplus and in the public interest. If the bill is passed, the minister could approve the export of more than 8,500 double truckloads of wood chips and shavings without any additional review of the application. This is a 40-fold increase and would logically have a correlation to employment.

B.C. is currently a net importer of wood chips. If the province needs more than we are exporting, why is the minister rushing to move more of our forests out of B.C.? With mills around the province shutting down and an exhausted timber supply in the mountain pine beetle-affected areas, this ability to approve a massive increase in exports sounds like a lot less value for B.C.’s forest products.

It also sounds like fewer jobs for British Columbians at a time when our government should be trying to keep forest product processing and production at home.

It’s not looking good on the environmental side, either. If passed, this amendment could lead to the expansion of forestry for export in areas that already do not have sufficient ecological conservation with little or no net gain for communities. The government should increase levels of forest protection from its current 15 per cent to scientifically mandated levels, instead of adding pressure on our forests by eliminating steps that help ensure a healthy balance is maintained.

Add to the mix the minister’s current priority to roll over volume-based tenures to area-based tenures, and one wonders whose interest is being served by these changes.

Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act brought forth by Environment Minister Mary Polak, proposes to allow “research” in the province’s parks related to feasibility and environmental assessment for pipelines, highways and transmission lines. However, the term “research” is not defined, and could mean anything from taking a water sample to drilling a test well. If the bill is passed, the minister could approve a permit for this range of research even if it isn’t consistent with the purpose of the park.

As written, Bill 4 would make every protected area vulnerable to large industrial projects.

When changes of this sort are proposed by a government, it is expected that public consultation and collaboration with affected sectors be done. This public vetting of policy ideas ensures that the resulting bill reflects the will of the public and affected interests. Decisions that affect the well-being of communities and forests should be up for public debate. Up to today, there has been no consultation with the public, environmental or labour sector.

Forests and forest workers deserve sustainability, and this should start with the government working to protect forests and keep jobs and forest-product manufacturing in B.C.

Fortunately, these are only proposed changes. There is still time to pull them off the table before we chip further away at our forest sector and our protected areas.

Read more: https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-forest-parks-bills-should-be-open-to-debate-1.898223

Ancient Forest Alliance

Giant tree nicknamed ‘Big Lonely Doug’ stands alone in clear-cut

Global TV‘s (BC’s largest TV news station) main news piece about “Big Lonely Doug”, which may be Canada’s 2nd largest Douglas-fir. Global TV joined the AFA’s TJ Watt and Ken Wu on a tour of the tree and clearcut yesterday.

[Video no longer available]

Ancient Forest Alliance

VIDEO: Big Lonely Doug

Global TV “pre-news piece” snippet using the AFA’s still photos about Big Lonely Doug, which may be Canada’s second largest Douglas-fir.

Direct video link: https://globalnews.ca/news/1235236/canadas-second-largest-douglas-fir-tree-may-have-been-found-near-port-renfrew/