Anthony Britneff

Disgraceful. Unbelievable.  And to think of the carbon subsidy in addition to this double-dipping is mind-boggling!

The government dealt with the scandal of a wood-splitter at the legislature; let's see if it deals with this scandal at the forests ministry. 

I will be watching to see things change for the better. 

On 2021-11-22 at 11:14 AM, Guest MikefromNorthVan said:

If you look closely at the images you will see lots of green young forests, likely plantations.  Most people agree that trees will regrow in the brown areas and that any public harvested area must be brought to a free growing reforested state by law. 

On 2021-11-20 at 7:37 PM, Guest MikefromNorthVan said:

Let’s work together to figure out what the problems are and how to make it work, it’s good for everyone.

Mike: 

You have found in Focus (and in the soon-to-be-launched Evergreen Alliance web site) one of the few Internet forums in which open, uncensored discussion of BC forestry problems and the presentation of ideas are possible.  

By contrast you will notice that the forest industry, its lobbyists and forest professionals do not offer any Internet venue for the discussion of problems and ideas.   Here I am referring to forest company web sites and to those of the Association of BC Forest Professionals, lumber associations, Council of Forest Industries, Truck Loggers Association, BC Forestry Alliance, and of Resource Works, most of which are full of defensive, self-serving facts and greenwashing. 

In short, the forest industry is not engaged in the dialogue you advocate.  It would be "good for everyone" if the forest industry decided to participate.  

On 2021-11-20 at 11:25 AM, David Broadland said:

These are the companies that brought BC to its knees last week, and not just by creating the conditions on the ground that led to forest fires, flooding and transportation infrastructure damage.

On the matter of naming and attributing carbon emissions to individual companies, I think we also need to recognize that forestry governance has been operating under a decades-long abnegation of corporate and government responsibility to professional reliance. 

Each and every one of those clearcuts in over-logged watersheds has had a cutting permit approved and signed-off by a forest professional. 

In keeping with professional reliance under the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA), and in fairness to the corporations that have relied on those professional foresters, a publicly available list of, say, 20 to 30 forest professionals, who have contributed most to those massive carbon emissions, would be helpful to have.  

Inclusion on this list could be decided by the number of cutting permits approved and signed or by the total area logged. 

Such a list would make it clear that the floodwaters that have devastated Merritt and other Interior communities didn't come out of thin air; rather they are the cumulative outcome of day-to-day decisions by professional foresters, who in effect betrayed the public trust. 

David: Is the naming of professionals something that you might consider for inclusion on the yet-to-be-launched Evergreen Alliance web site?  And do you agree that in doing so the outcome might produce positive change in the public interest?

In 2007, in a special investigative report, the Forest Practices Board warned the BC government about the effect of excessive rates of clearcut logging on flooding in large watersheds. The investigator was UBC research scientist and hydrologist Dr. Younes Alila.

https://www.bcfpb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SIR16.pdf   

The Board made headline news with the outcomes of this report.  Local, regional and national media reported on this modelling study for several days. It even made a splash in the Alberta legislature.

FPB-Final-Report-online.pdf

On 2021-11-20 at 2:48 PM, Fred Marshall said:

What can we do to make sure they don't get away with it? 

Fred:  Just one person can start a class action lawsuit.  That said, as I understand the law (and I am not a lawyer and this is not advice), the courts draw a line between policy and operations.  Those on the side of "policy" (e.g., the chief forester and her staff) can't be touched but those on the side of "operations" (e.g. companies and the operational arms of the forest ministry like district offices and BCTS) can be named as defendants. 

5 hours ago, David Broadland said:

Below is a list of the top 23 logging company emitters, . . .

I suspect some readers might be asking themselves, "Where does BC Timber Sales fit into this carbon accounting because BCTS is responsible for 20 per cent of the provincial allowable annual cut?". 

Trevor Goward touches upon the subject of attribution of cause to effect.  Attribution science over the past decade has made great advances in the fields of climate change and hydrology.  

David Broadland alludes to the seminal research of UBC research scientist, Dr. Younes Alila, a provincial leader in the field of hydrology, and XuJian Joe Yu.  Dr. Alila's pioneering research is able to answer the questions to which Trevor alludes: how much of the damage to infrastructure and communities is attributable to climate change; how much to clearcut logging, and how much to wildfire?  We need answers. 

The relationship between logging, wildfire and increased risk of more frequent peak flows of greater magnitude and of longer duration is well established in current science.  

This leads me to the concluding comments in David's story about who foots the bill for apparent negligence in the over-exploitation of our forests and how we might immediately begin to mitigate against "a very bleak"  and frightening future. 

Residents of Merritt and Princeton, who have incurred damage, might choose to seek restitution in the courts by holding the forest industry and provincial government accountable -- BC Timber Sales, the government's logging arm, being the biggest logger in the province with 20 per cent of the allowable annual cut (AAC).  

As for immediate mitigative action, the obvious change in forest policy is for the provincial government to make clearcut logging illegal, to end all logging in primary forests, and to contract the forest industry to 20 percent of its present capacity to cover domestic needs for forest products by stopping the multi-million-dollar subsidies each day to the industry and by radically reducing the AAC to sustainable levels that place priority on public safety.

An emergency of the magnitude of massive climate disruption requires strong leadership to take immediate mitigative measures. Where is the political will and leadership in British Columbia?  And for how long will you, the taxpayer. tolerate subsidizing the forest industry to contribute significantly to the social and economic disruption of the Province? 

In aliis verbis by failing to protect old-growth forests, to reduce the rate of logging and to price the massive amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by logging, the BC provincial government  is subsidizing the forest industry to heat the planet above 1.5 degrees Centigrade.  This is ecocide. 

Thank you forest defenders for all you do in the public interest.  Like the BC government, the BC judiciary is failing us by putting its interests ahead of the public interest . . . so stay strong.  

On 2021-10-20 at 1:51 PM, Yellow Cedar said:

... The deadly mix of clearcutting, monoculture planting, and global warming (which is caused by clearcutting), have triggered the bark beetle catastrophe we are experiencing. 

I suspect forest entomologists might find this statement to be problematic.  I refer readers to the attached report on forest health, which they might find to be of interest.  The report is titled The Implications of Climate Change to Forest Health in British Columbia.  Provincial entomologists and pathologists wrote the report in 2009 for the chief forester.  

I quote from page 10 of the report: 

FH-climagechangeimplications_final_March2009.pdf

On 2021-08-13 at 2:08 PM, Guest Sean Steede said:

There is so much I take issue with in this article - for example who ever said that the industry should be structured such that it only meets the needs of British Columbians?  If that were truly the case, we would have only 2 sawmills and well over 50,000 neighbors out of work in this province.  It's a ridiculous statement to make.  

I don't think anyone said that.  But since you imply it, let's explore the idea.  Given that:

1. Wildfires in B.C. have surged so dramatically that they, together with logging, have overtaken fossil fuels as the province’s major source of climate-destabilizing CO2. You won’t find this in the provincial government’s carbon accounting because it has deftly chosen to ignore carbon emissions from logging and wildfire;   
2. The rate and extent of clearcut logging in B.C. has a large carbon footprint and serious consequences such as: more severe and frequent flood and drought events, destruction of shallow soils, depletion of groundwater, destruction of fish and wildlife habitats, contamination of drinking water, continued extermination and extirpation of animals and plants, and bigger more intense wildfires that are dangerous to the health, safety and survival of British Columbians;  
3. The high level of forest product exports (80% of all logging in B.C.) mainly to three countries (USA, China and Japan), all of which have higher standards for the protection and conservation of primary forests than B.C. has, means that they are conserving their ecosystems at the expense of the degradation (and loss) of our ecosystems; and,
4. The forest sector contributes only 2 per cent to the provincial GDP and 2 percent to the labour force.  

Accordingly, is it not in the public interest to ban clearcutting, substantially lower the allowable annual cut, reduce exports of raw logs and forest products, and cut back the labour force in the forest sector? 

If we as a society in B.C. can cut 400,000 jobs in two months of 2020 to deal with a global pandemic, is it that ridiculous to transition, say, 40,000 forestry jobs into non-destructive forest enterprises and other economic sectors in order to mitigate a global climate emergency having such costly consequences for B.C.'s environment and residents?

On 2021-08-13 at 2:08 PM, Guest Sean Steede said:

The primary reason BC will continue to face more and larger fires . . . is directly related to the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB)

I was surprised that a senior industry manager, after reading this story, would have the temerity to repeat a false myth (quoted above) used ad nauseam by foresters, by spokespersons for the forest industry, and, inexcusably, by politicians and senior public servants, who sit on the very same data that David Broadland uses to disprove the myth in this story and in his response to Sean Steede's comment.  

Hopefully, other senior industry and government personnel will read David Broadland's story and take away another chief point, which is that the rate of logging in B.C. Canada (deforestation of primary forests) on a hectare-per-capita basis  is extreme, greater than in  most countries in the world . . . way worse than in Brazil, Indonesia and Russia. 

This excessive rate of clearcutting primary forests has grave consequences for all of us: bigger and more intense wildfires, worsening flood and drought events, extirpation and extinction of animals and plants, massive carbon pollution of the atmosphere, and dangerous issues for our health and safety. 

47 minutes ago, Guest cee said:

who do we vote for instead?  we also need dramatic and drastic change at the municipal level and federal really--it needs to also come from grassroots

You might very well ask who to vote for, Cee; I couldn't possibly comment other than to say vote for the party that appears to have the political will to deal with the root causes of the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis in B.C. (forestry, LNG, fracking, and the gross subsidies to all three)

As for hope, seek some encouragement from the words of Suzanne Simard taken from her recent speech at a rally outside the provincial legislature on August 9, 2021:

"Be on the right side of history. Don't give up . . . There is a big confluence happening right now.  There is an energy in this world.  There is change about to happen.  We have no choice.  Let's be at the forefront of it." 

Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=236199095036686&ref=watch_permalink  (Suzanne Simard speaks from 1:30 to 1:53 minutes on the video)

16 hours ago, Guest Cee said:

. . .  is there any hope for the future here . . .?  

"Carbon emissions may continue to rise, the polar ice caps may continue to melt, crop yields may continue to decline, the world’s forests may continue to burn, coastal cities may continue to sink under rising seas and droughts may continue to wipe out fertile farmlands, but the messiahs of hope assure us that all will be right in the end. Only it won’t.” — Chris Hedges  

Source:  https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/09/18/Climate-Crisis-Wipe-Out/

Our job is to make sure these messiahs of false hope do not win elections. Politicians/leaders need to understand that we the people do not tolerate lies, duplicity and betrayal, especially when we are faced with the exigencies of global heating: water degradation, loss of animals and plants,  and a climate dangerous to our health, safety and survival.  Once politicians/leaders get the message at the polls, then we have some hope of containing the damage yet to come. 

Congratulations David Broadland on a magnificent piece of investigative journalism exposing as false more of the forest industry's and ministry's self-serving mantras.  Thank you

Recently a team of scientists, practitioners and academics wrote a White Paper on wildfire and climate change (see attachment). 

When I searched the document for the words logging, allowable annual cut, clearcuts and plantations, I found none. 

This leads me to question whether collectively the signatories to the White Paper are avoiding embarrassment to the forest ministry and the forest industry that feed some of them. 

Any acknowledgement of the role played by highly flammable clearcuts (of live trees) and young plantations in exacerbating ignition, area and rate of spread, and intensity of recent wildfires would likely lead to: 

• questions of legal liability of the forest industry and government for extensive damage to properties and livelihoods; and to
• recommendations that: (1) clearcut logging of primary forests cease and (2) the allowable annual cut be greatly reduced. 

Would these two recommendations not be prudent and in the public interest given the climate emergency, the biodiversity crisis and the greatly threatened health and safety faced by the residents of rural communities for centuries to come?

White Paper_wildfires and climate change.pdf.pdf

Thanks Hans for the clear exposé.  

For those readers who wish to learn more about Ecojustice's complaint to which Hans refers in this story, please find the press release and text at these links:

Press release: https://ecojustice.ca/pressrelease/sustainable_forestry_claims_false/…

Text for the complaint: 

https://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-07-21-CSA-CB-Complaint.pdf

Thanks Hans for your story with which I agree wholeheartedly.  However, for me, to certify forest management in British Columbia as sustainable is more than an abuse of the language but rather a false claim that misleads Canadian consumers and the foreign buyers of 80 per cent of our forest products in the United States, Japan and China into believing that B.C.'s forests are sustainably managed.  CSA forest certification for sustainable forest management is a sham and falsely represents what is happening to provincial forests.  

Today, July 21st, on behalf of six signatories and supported by Stand.earth and Ancient Forest Alliance, Ecojustice filed a request for an investigation by the federal Competition Bureau into CSA’s false and misleading sustainability allegations.  Readers can find below the media release and the text of the complaint. Thanks go to Ecojustice for crafting the complaint: 

https://ecojustice.ca/case/calling-for-an-investigation-into-sustainable-logging-in-b-c/ 

Text for the press release may be found in full here: https://ecojustice.ca/pressrelease/sustainable_forestry_claims_false/…

Text for the complaint filed with the federal Competition Bureau may be found in full here: https://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-07-21-CSA-CB-Complaint.pdf

CSA complaint.Media release.EMBARGO July 21 2021.docx 2021-06-01 CSA CB Complaint.pdf

Am I in Canada? Marauding goons? Shattered glass at night.  Indeed,  how far is this going to go?  The horrific images and the stories being shared with other countries speak to premier Horgan running a failed state.  Horgan must end this violence; guarantee the safety of protesters; and, protect the 3% of remaining old-growth forests.  

Premier Horgan in four years has established a reputation as a mountebank (reconciliation, site C dam, species-at-risk legislation, forestry legislation reform, log exports, old-growth protection, etc.).  Pathetically, like most unsophisticated swindlers, he has grossly underestimated the intelligence of most of those whom he has intended to hood wink. 

The cat is out of the bag.  And British Columbians now know for sure that the real colonialist is John Horgan himself, whose government signed this agreement with a poor and abused First Nation knowing full well that the agreement effectively "continues the exploitation of forests on unceded traditional territory in violation of the rights if indigenous peoples and their unsettled land claim" (YM) both by the government and the forest industry, thereby making a farce of the whole notion of reconciliation.  

Out of self interest, if not a sense of decency and honour, the BC NDP caucus might do a service to British Columbians if it considered the finding of a new leader keeping in mind that Murray Rankin, Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and MLA for OakBay - Gordon Head, signed this colonial agreement.   Removal of John Horgan as leader would be a good first step toward the BC NDP making good on its election commitments and promises.   

John Horgan ran both his election campaigns without any meaningful new policy for forestry.  Anything promised has not been delivered. He apparently doesn't know anything about forestry and doesn't listen to anyone who does.  His advice, if he seeks it, comes from a cabal of unelected party insiders, the forest industry, and a forests ministry -- the mindustry -- wholly captured by the industry. 

Horgan after Adrian Dix took the wind out of the sails of a progressive BC NDP just as Glen Clark did after Mike Harcourt.  What makes matters worse is that Horgan and his insiders implicitly champion the deregulated forestry policy that they inherited from the BC Liberals. 

It is heartbreaking to know that we have a premier of the province who appears to be absolutely clueless about the three defining issues of our time -- water, biodiversity loss and climate change -- and about the combined, devastating roles played by the industry and forests ministry in making all three worse.  

God help us. 

Thank you David Broadland for your thorough analysis of Justice Verhoeven's ruling. 

It appears to me that you have set out solid grounds for an appeal of the judge's decision.  Let's hope that a lawyer, who cares about justice as opposed to the legal system, steps forth to represent pro bono the Fairy Creek demonstrators in an appeal.  

Indeed, as you point out so well,  "the irreparable harm" is to the public interest with outrageously bloated subsidies to the forest industry that employs only 1.9% of BC's jobs and generates only 2% of BC's gross domestic product (Source: BC Stats).  

It is these inordinate government subsidies together with a complete absence of BC NDP forest policy that enable the forest industry's ongoing destruction of communities, watersheds, rivers, drinking water, biodiversity, caribou, salmon, grizzlies, wolves, carbon reserves, high-value old-growth primary forests, forestland, and climate.  

By continuing to allow the logging of high-value, old-growth, primary forests, is premier John Horgan practising ecocide?

14 hours ago, Guest EveryCriticOne said:

Not everything is willful deception. Maybe it was just a poor analysis under the pressure of political expediency and the challenges of crappy inventory data. It's challenging to make everyone happy, but politicians often try.

Indeed, but misinformation and misrepresentation are nevertheless deceptive.  The forests inventory is not "crappy" for the purpose of delineating primary forest in the timber harvesting land base.  Most technical staff in the forests ministry are competent and during my time with the ministry a screw-up by technical staff of this magnitude would have been inconceivable . . . impossible.  And I suspect (and hope) the same is true today.  So I doubt that the misleading information came from technical staff but rather from the political-administrative interface in the BC NDP government, meaning the forests ministry executive and staffers in the minister's and premier's offices. 

The BC NDP politicians continue to perpetrate what is now confirmed to be an outright lie.  Witness Premier Horgan's recent mandate letter to new forests minister Katrine Conroy in which Horgan writes,  “Implement the recommendations of the Old Growth Strategic Review in collaboration with Indigenous leaders, labour, industry, and environmental groups to protect more old- growth stands – in addition to the 353,000 hectares protected in September 2020.”