Fascinating article. Great support made for the points, although there is one question I am left with - BC has had a TON of forest fires over the past decade, with several each year burning out of control. The prevailing narrative has often been that the degree of damage from these fires could be mitigated with better forestry maintenance like controlled burns and other measures. Which begs the question - Does this kind of logging or forest even match up with that style of mitigation? If so, that might be the only other argument I can see for the logging, although it would have to be lock and step in line with the mitigation plan.
Hi Geoff. I might be able to shed some light on this as I live in the wildfire prone area of BC. Prescribed burns and the use of forestry to reduce wildfire risk really only applies to the interior of the province, everything east of the coast mountains. Coastal forests rarely have forest fires, that is why the trees can live for 500+ years. In the interior fire is a natural part of the ecosystem occurring in intervals of 5-120 years depending on how dry the area is. The interior has challenges not too different from California where the combination of hotter summers due to climate change and a 100 year old policy of putting out all fires has left us with huge wildfire risks. In the interior, responsible forestry practices can both help reduce fire risks and even, to some degree, mimick the natural fire cycle. Most interior ecosystems have few tree that survive longer than 150 years so harvest cycles of 80-150 years, again if done properly, can leave ecosystems close to their natural state.
None of that applies to the coastal forests the author is referring to. Protection/reduced wildfire risk is a non existent factor when it comes to these forests.
Great argument, while there is a sustainable forest industry argument in general, there is not one that could persuade that removing an ecosystem that has been built over a millennia. The amount of "profit" for a single organization cannot justify this course.
Is there a typo in the article? It says that tourism generated $8.3M but the link has the figure of $20.5M in 2018 and $18.4M in 2017.
Otherwise, I agree with the analysis here. Though, as with the previous article, I'm skeptical of the claim about a tourism industry only needing a little push to get started. There are significant differences in accesibility and nearby population as compared to Redwood National Park.
To develop a tourism industry BC needs more capacity to house people. That's going to require changing the zoning laws, but it's also going to require... lumber.
Hi Grant, to compare apples to apples, I used the smaller figure of "direct GDP contribution" rather than total revenue or spin-offs, which is $8.3B (billion, not millions).
I agree with you that going from nearly zero to Redwood National Park is not something that will happen overnight. But the critical element is having the natural landscape to merit that kind of tourism, and once you take that away you've sabotaged any chance of building it. Much of BC's remaining old growth is in extremely remote areas that will never be accessed by roads at all, let alone highways. Around my home in Powell River for example, remaining old growth is only found in high elevation alpine valleys over an hour's drive from the highway. The areas surrounding Port Renfrew are unique for having intact watersheds close to people.
Finally, a rational discussion from the environmental side. Controlled logging for profit and to protect other values is feasible in short lived forests like the Boreal where old growth natural forests are rare due to natural fire recurrence.
Thank you for this. The ugly, grotesque, evil economic reality of old growth forests, like most renewable 'natural' resources, is the best thing to do financially is clear cut them all as rapidly as possible and invest the money in a basket of exchange traded funds (ETF).
Historically, the stock market 'grows' far more rapidly than trees. And, trees alone, of course, never make a forest, let alone an old growth forest, anymore than wheat makes meadows or grasslands.
This economic horror equally applies to all 'renewable' animal 'resources' including fish, seals, whales, moose, etc. In terms of money to be acquired, stock markets 'grow' faster than eco-systems.
Fascinating article. Great support made for the points, although there is one question I am left with - BC has had a TON of forest fires over the past decade, with several each year burning out of control. The prevailing narrative has often been that the degree of damage from these fires could be mitigated with better forestry maintenance like controlled burns and other measures. Which begs the question - Does this kind of logging or forest even match up with that style of mitigation? If so, that might be the only other argument I can see for the logging, although it would have to be lock and step in line with the mitigation plan.
Hi Geoff. I might be able to shed some light on this as I live in the wildfire prone area of BC. Prescribed burns and the use of forestry to reduce wildfire risk really only applies to the interior of the province, everything east of the coast mountains. Coastal forests rarely have forest fires, that is why the trees can live for 500+ years. In the interior fire is a natural part of the ecosystem occurring in intervals of 5-120 years depending on how dry the area is. The interior has challenges not too different from California where the combination of hotter summers due to climate change and a 100 year old policy of putting out all fires has left us with huge wildfire risks. In the interior, responsible forestry practices can both help reduce fire risks and even, to some degree, mimick the natural fire cycle. Most interior ecosystems have few tree that survive longer than 150 years so harvest cycles of 80-150 years, again if done properly, can leave ecosystems close to their natural state.
None of that applies to the coastal forests the author is referring to. Protection/reduced wildfire risk is a non existent factor when it comes to these forests.
Thanks for this!
Great argument, while there is a sustainable forest industry argument in general, there is not one that could persuade that removing an ecosystem that has been built over a millennia. The amount of "profit" for a single organization cannot justify this course.
Is there a typo in the article? It says that tourism generated $8.3M but the link has the figure of $20.5M in 2018 and $18.4M in 2017.
Otherwise, I agree with the analysis here. Though, as with the previous article, I'm skeptical of the claim about a tourism industry only needing a little push to get started. There are significant differences in accesibility and nearby population as compared to Redwood National Park.
To develop a tourism industry BC needs more capacity to house people. That's going to require changing the zoning laws, but it's also going to require... lumber.
Hi Grant, to compare apples to apples, I used the smaller figure of "direct GDP contribution" rather than total revenue or spin-offs, which is $8.3B (billion, not millions).
I agree with you that going from nearly zero to Redwood National Park is not something that will happen overnight. But the critical element is having the natural landscape to merit that kind of tourism, and once you take that away you've sabotaged any chance of building it. Much of BC's remaining old growth is in extremely remote areas that will never be accessed by roads at all, let alone highways. Around my home in Powell River for example, remaining old growth is only found in high elevation alpine valleys over an hour's drive from the highway. The areas surrounding Port Renfrew are unique for having intact watersheds close to people.
Hey Rishi. Appreciate the point. Cheers.
Finally, a rational discussion from the environmental side. Controlled logging for profit and to protect other values is feasible in short lived forests like the Boreal where old growth natural forests are rare due to natural fire recurrence.
Thank you for this. The ugly, grotesque, evil economic reality of old growth forests, like most renewable 'natural' resources, is the best thing to do financially is clear cut them all as rapidly as possible and invest the money in a basket of exchange traded funds (ETF).
Historically, the stock market 'grows' far more rapidly than trees. And, trees alone, of course, never make a forest, let alone an old growth forest, anymore than wheat makes meadows or grasslands.
This economic horror equally applies to all 'renewable' animal 'resources' including fish, seals, whales, moose, etc. In terms of money to be acquired, stock markets 'grow' faster than eco-systems.