Myths of the B.C. forest industry

Photo: Eli Pivnick

A replanted clear cut near Rock Creek, B.C.

Successive B.C. governments have failed to seriously overhaul forestry policy.

The late Upton Sinclair, a distinguished American author and political activist (1878-1968), pointed out a truth that is applicable today.

“It is difficult for a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it,” he said.

A good example is the March 7 letter to Castanet by Brian LaPointe. LaPointe has worked in the forest industry continuously since 1973. His letter expresses many of the myths propagated by the forest industry.

The industry has always said, echoed by Lapointe, that clear cuts mimic insect and disease infestations and wildfires. However, that is true only when a forest is regarded as a supply of timber. But forests are much more than that. Forests are critical to the hydrological cycle. Trees hold back water from melting snow and rain, allowing it to seep deep into the soil following tree roots.

Trees shade and cool the land and water evaporates from trees, keeping the forest air moist.

Dead trees are important for wildlife. Biologists employ bat boxes, bluebird nesting boxes and artificial bear dens to make up for the loss of dead trees. Many insects use dead trees for food. Birds, especially woodpeckers, and mammals feed on those insects. Have you ever tried to burn rotten wood? It is often wet, as it holds water.

After insect or disease outbreaks, as well as wildfires, dead trees remain as do some healthy trees due to luck or valuable properties that they can pass on. Dead standing trees provide habitat and food for wildlife, provide shade and hold back water with their roots for years afterward. Downed trees also provide habitat and moisture but if the area is logged—with the healthy trees cut down as well as the dead ones—downed logs are removed prior to re-planting.

LaPointe’s idea that our forests need to be “refreshed” by clear-cutting and re-planting, and that it is “gentler than wild fires” and has “conservation and bio-diversity benefits” is simply propaganda. The forest industry in B.C. has been successful at it, convincing B.C. residents and trading partners our forests are sustainably managed.

If this were the case, why are caribou and spotted owl populations collapsing, moose and furbearers on the decline, many lumber and paper mills closing and forestry jobs having declined by 50% in the last 20 years?

Two reports in the last five years found only 3% of our high-value low-elevation old growth forests remain. There is not more public outcry in B.C. because everywhere you look there are trees. However, the trees are mostly replanted, small and dense, and are of one or two species with few deciduous trees, shrubs, mushrooms or herbaceous plants. That is because of soil compaction from heavy machinery, herbicide sprays and soil disturbance carried out before planting.

It may look like a forest but animals know different and they are not found there. A replanted forest is like a city where everyone over the age of 15 has left. There would still be people, but the community would not be functional. If you want to get a sense of what we have done to the forests in B.C., use Google Earth’s time lapse. There you can look at time lapse videos of anywhere on the planet from 1984 to 2022. In most areas of B.C., it would appear there is a giant infestation eating our forests. That “infestation” is our forest industry.

B.C. forests used to store carbon, now they emit it. The B.C. government does not include those emissions in its yearly reports. However, they are as big as all the emissions reported. In bad fire years (2017, 2018, 2021 and 2023), forest emissions were two the three times as big as all reported emissions. Forests sequester less carbon because the trees are smaller and less healthy than they used to be.

Our forestry practices contribute to climate change, which is partly responsible for the increase in fires, floods, landslides and droughts that we are experiencing. But forestry practices are also directly responsible. Ministry of Forests recommendations are that no more than 20% to 30% of a forested area can be clearcut over a 60- to 80-year period without comprising the forest’s ability to hold back water. That recommendation is rarely respected.

That and the lack of shade means clearcut areas are more susceptible to fires for 20 years, even if re-planted. Ironically, herbicide spraying removes deciduous trees which are able to slow down forest fires.

If clearcuts are so harmful, why are they the dominant form of logging? In a word, profit. Clear cutting means faster and bigger machinery can be used. So it is more efficient and cheaper. The downside is on jobs, tourism, wildlife, fires, floods, scenery, landslides, biodiversity and the climate.

Selective logging, which cuts down trees without destroying the forest, is a sustainable way to log. In 20 years, clearcut logging will be recognized for the barbaric and destructive practice it is, like smoking cigarettes on an airplane, or spraying people with DDT to get rid of lice. No one in the future will clear cut.

We need that future now.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.