Jump to content

Fred Marshall

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Blogs

Events

Journalism: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Journalism: Loss of forest-related employment

Journalism: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Journalism: Loss of primary forest

Journalism: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Other notable forest-related writing and reports

Noteworthy writing and reports from the forest-industrial complex

Forest News

Library: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Loss of primary forest

Library: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Make conservation of the hydrological function of forests a higher priority than timber extraction

Library: Loss of forest-related employment

Library: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Transition from clearcut logging to selection logging

Library: Increase in forest fire hazard

Journalism: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Journalism: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Library: Creating a new vision for BC forests

Forest industry public subsidy calculator

Manufacturing and processing facilities

Forest Trends

Investigations

Community Forest Mapping Projects

Area-based calculations of carbon released from clearcut logging

Journalism: The increase in forest carbon emissions

Library: Increase in forest carbon emissions

To protect biodiversity, transition away from clearcut logging

Peachland Watershed Protection Alliance

Library: Loss of future employment resulting from exporting raw logs

Mapping old forest on Vancouver Island

Mapping old forest in Omineca Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Skeena Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Northeastern Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Cariboo Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in South Coast Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Thompson-Okanagan Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Kootenay-Boundary Natural Resource Region

Forest Conservation Organizations

Mapping old forest on Haida Gwaii

Mapping old forest on the central coast

Library: Ecologically damaging practices

Journalism: Ecologically damaging practices

Critical Issues

Analysis

Comment

Listed species: Cascades Natural Resource District

Listed species: 100 Mile House Natural Resource District

Listed species: Campbell River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Cariboo-Chilcotin Natural Resource District

Listed species: Chilliwack River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Fort Nelson Natural Resource District

Listed species: Haida Gwaii Natural Resource District

Listed species: Mackenzie Natural Resource District

Listed species: Nadina Natural Resource District

Listed species: North Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Peace Natural Resource District

Listed species: Prince George Natural Resource District

Listed species: Quesnel Natural Resource District

Listed species: Rocky Mountain Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sea-to-Sky Natural Resource District

Listed species: Selkirk Natural Resource District

Listed species: Skeena Natural Resource District

Listed species: South Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Stuart-Nechako Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sunshine Coast Natural Resource District

Listed species: Thompson Rivers Natural Resource District

Listed species: Coast Mountains Natural Resource District

Action Group: Divestment from forest-removal companies

Fact-checking mindustry myths

First Nations Agreements

Monitor: BC Timber Sales Auctions

BC Timber Sales auction of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island

Monitoring of forest fires in clearcuts and plantations: 2021

Library: End public subsidization of forest industry

Examples of engaging the mindustry:

Portal: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Portal: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Portal: The need to expedite treaties with First Nations

Portal: The need to get more organized, informed and inspired for change

Portal: Develop a new relationship with forests

Portal: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Portal: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Portal: Increase in forest fire hazard

Portal: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Portal: Increase in forest carbon emissions

Portal: Ecologically damaging forestry practices

Portal: Loss of forest-related employment

Portal: Loss of future employment resulting from raw log exports

Portal: Costs of floods, fires and clearcutting of watersheds

Portal: The economic impact on communities of boom and bust cycles

Portal: Loss of economic development by other forest-based sectors

Portal: The true cost of subsidies provided to the logging industry

Help

Loss of trust in institutions

Portal: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Portal: The psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Portal: Loss of trust in institutions caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Portal: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Journalism: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Journalism: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Journalism: Loss in trust of institutions as a result of over-exploitation of BC forests

Journalism: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Library: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Library: Loss of trust in institutions as a result of over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Resources: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Resources: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Resources: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Journalism: Cost of floods, fires and clearcutting of community watersheds

Journalism: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Journalism: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Library: Cost of floods, fires and clearcutting of community watersheds

Library: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Library: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Portal: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Portal: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Journalism: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Library: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Journalism: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Library: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Resources: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Resources: Ecologically damaging forestry practices

Resources: Conversion of forests to permanent logging roads

Library: Getting organized

Journalism: Getting organized

Forest politics

Forest Stewards

Portal: Plantation failure

Library: Plantation failure

Journalism: Plantation failure

Library: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Portal: Soil loss and damage

Journalism: Soil loss and damage

Library: Soil loss and damage

Resources: Soil loss and damage

Journalism: Loss of employment resulting from export of raw logs

Journalism: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Journalism: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Journalism: Increase in forest fire hazard

Action Group: Sunlighting professional reliance

Making the case for much greater conservation of BC forests

Science Alliance for Forestry Transformation

Bearing witness:

Economic State of the BC Forest Sector

Big tree mapping and monitoring

Reported Elsewhere

Protect more

Start a forest conservation project

Get involved

Article reference pages

Physical impacts created by logging industry

Nature Directed Stewardship at Glade and Laird watersheds

References for: How did 22 TFLs in BC evade legal old-growth management areas?

References for: BC's triangle of fire: More than just climate change

References for: Teal Cedar goes after Fairy Creek leaders

References for: Is the draft framework on biodiversity and ecosystem health something new? Or just more talk and log?

Store

Downloads

Everything posted by Fred Marshall

  1. Fred Marshall
    I have viewed this video and have found the following: 1. The new planning process is stated to be ~ 8+ years long. It is a very complex, convoluted, confusing and lengthy process. How can it be reviewed every 5 years when the first one won't be completed for 8-10 years? 2. What geographic areas will a FLP cover relative to current TSA boundaries? 3. How will the new FLPs relate to the current LUPs across BC, especially as these plans need mega updating and revisions? 4. How will a FLP address or consider other developments proposed or happening on the landscape (I.e. in the Boundary TSA the doubling of Big White Mtn ski area which will include 3 golf courses and the different but associated Powder Renegade Lodge and associated ski operation)? 5. Ditto other developments i.e. pipelines, mines, dams across BC etc. 6. The new Protected Area program with the goal of formally protecting 30% of BC by 2030 and 50% by 3050 must be appropriately considered in any Landscape level plans BEFORE they are developed especially before the TSR process happens. 7. The TSR AAC process must be revised to remove it's deficiencies and defects so that it appropriately and correctly accommodates the amalgamation of TFLs and TSAs or whatever area the new LUPs will cover. If the area covered by the TSR process also includes areas designated or likely to be designated as formally Protected Areas, appropriate deductions must be made for these areas. They cannot be ignored in this process as they currently are. How will the new AAC for the Landscape area be distributed among the TFL holders and the volume-based holders? 8. While small Community Forests, Woodlots and Woodland Licences will be excluded from LUPs will they also have to comply with the other planning processes (FOM, FOPs, Site Plans etc.)? What is a "small" Community Forest? I fail to see how such a planning regime can and/or will result in improved management for all of BC's natural resources.
  2. Fred Marshall
    It appears that the auditing of forestry firms to ensure that their forestry operations are well and properly done, are sustainable across the landscape; respect indigenous values, respect all aspects of biodiversity; respect all water bodies, ensure all streams and riparian areas are well protected with all being in the best interests of the public who own them—is a complete sham. Like the forest companies, the auditing firms do their work to make money—and say and do whatever it takes to ensure they are very successful in doing this. The lesson we should all learn from this is that: No one should ever rely on any auditor who is paid by the entity they are auditing to produce a report that is fully honest. In the Boundary area we have definite proof of this folly involving SFI.
  3. Fred Marshall
    I am also concerned about the $10 million dollar subsidy to the forest industry for: " developing and implementing alternatives to clear-cutting practices, such as selective harvesting techniques, that better support forest resiliency, ecosystem health and climate adaptation, through a new $10-million silviculture innovation program;" On what, and how—exactly—will these millions of dollars be spent? Most all forest professionals in BC took Forestry 301 (or whatever course number Silviculture was) in college or university and learned what the various silviculture systems were—including selective and/or variable retention harvesting and how to apply them. So who will get these funds and why? Perhaps to develop a refresher course in selective harvesting? Or what? Many entities, like woodlot, Community forest licensees and private forest-land owners in and across BC, have consistently harvested the timber under their jurisdictions via some form of selective and/or variable-retention harvesting. Will any of the $10 million dollars accrue to these operators to recognize, encourage and perhaps even reward their good performance in this regard? Or will it be awarded and accrue to those entities that have have used clear-cutting or seed-tree with clear-cutting over most to all of their tenures? If so, then this is rewarding bad behaviour which would be very inappropriate. However, this has, unfortunately, been the modus operandi of the BC government for far too long. Surely it will not continue. I sincerely hope that these funds are allocated and spent in a manner that ensures that such expenditures and associated works are wisely, judiciously and fairly used and implemented.
  4. Fred Marshall
    I have read this treatise and give it very high marks. What was particularly significant to me was the statement below which indicated that, even though we are often dealing with landscapes that have been heavily modified—with the only objective then being to get the cut out as fast as possible and keep doing that—there is some hope to change this M.O. “Changing the character and condition of a single ecosystem within a landscape will not have as much overall influence as changing the broader character and condition of the landscape. However, working from the ecosystem, patch, or site toward the landscape may serve as an important catalyst for development of broad landscape visions and plans for protection and responsible use, and initiate important restoration activities. “Thus, starting with the restoration of a clearcut or road, a vision may be formulated for Earth-centred living that stimulates development and implementation of Nature-Directed Stewardship for a watershed or large landscape. “This approach offers a manageable, community-based way to initiate Nature-Directed Stewardship. In other words, start with the small, but manageable forest patch or site, and keep “walking up” the scale to expand site protection and restoration efforts to become watershed and landscape protection and restoration.” —Page 4
  5. Fred Marshall
    I have read this treatise and give it very high marks. What was particularly significant to me was the statement below which indicated that, even though we are often dealing with landscapes that have been heavily modified—with the only objective then being to get the cut out as fast as possible and keep doing that—there is some hope to change this M.O. “Changing the character and condition of a single ecosystem within a landscape will not have as much overall influence as changing the broader character and condition of the landscape. However, working from the ecosystem, patch, or site toward the landscape may serve as an important catalyst for development of broad landscape visions and plans for protection and responsible use, and initiate important restoration activities. “Thus, starting with the restoration of a clearcut or road, a vision may be formulated for Earth-centred living that stimulates development and implementation of Nature-Directed Stewardship for a watershed or large landscape. “This approach offers a manageable, community-based way to initiate Nature-Directed Stewardship. In other words, start with the small, but manageable forest patch or site, and keep “walking up” the scale to expand site protection and restoration efforts to become watershed and landscape protection and restoration.” —Page 4
  6. Fred Marshall
    I have read this treatise and give it very high marks. What was particularly significant to me was the statement below which indicated that, even though we are often dealing with landscapes that have been heavily modified—with the only objective then being to get the cut out as fast as possible and keep doing that—there is some hope to change this M.O. “Changing the character and condition of a single ecosystem within a landscape will not have as much overall influence as changing the broader character and condition of the landscape. However, working from the ecosystem, patch, or site toward the landscape may serve as an important catalyst for development of broad landscape visions and plans for protection and responsible use, and initiate important restoration activities. “Thus, starting with the restoration of a clearcut or road, a vision may be formulated for Earth-centred living that stimulates development and implementation of Nature-Directed Stewardship for a watershed or large landscape. “This approach offers a manageable, community-based way to initiate Nature-Directed Stewardship. In other words, start with the small, but manageable forest patch or site, and keep “walking up” the scale to expand site protection and restoration efforts to become watershed and landscape protection and restoration.” —Page 4
  7. Fred Marshall
    In 2019, the Council of Forest Industries published a paper titled: “Smart Future: A Path Forward for BC’s Forest Products Industry” The gist of this paper is captured in the following quotes which exemplify the intent of its several proposals. My comments are in italics. COFI wants the government to: 1. Define the working forest land base. Like conservation areas, designate the area that will be available for harvesting and lock in the commitment. (Lock in the THLB.) 2. Implement a “no-net-loss policy” to provide certainty in the long term. Undertake a review every 5 years. (Keep it locked in with no reductions.) 3. Ensure policies and processes allow for timely and consistent access to the working forest land base. (Ditto. This mantra is repeated a third time to make sure everyone was clear on what the forest industry wanted and continues to want.) 4. Transition a portion of the existing forest licenses from volume-based to area-based to encourage further investment by companies in intensive forest management. (Give us more TFLs so we have more control over these areas and can then better manage (exploit) them.) 5. Convene an expert working group including government, industry, and academic experts to develop innovative and flexible approaches to climate-affected forests to ensure a more stable, fire-resilient and sustainable timber supply. (The Chief Forester’s Leadership Team was created to fulfill this role and has achieved remarkable success in doing so—except for the sustainable part!) A copy of this paper is attached as is a copy of my comments made shortly after it was released. Many people in BC had then, and still have, a much different vision of what actually constitutes a “Smart Future” for BC’s forests. COFI_-Smart-Future-A-Path-Forward-Sept-28-2019.pdf Excerpts-from-COFI-Plans-for-BC's-Future-with-comments-from-Fred-Marshall-Sept-30-2019.pdf
  8. Fred Marshall
    More information about "Canfor: Stop the wailing. Government: No more bailouts."
    BC's logging industry went from boom to bust (again) in a matter of months. Let's not do the same thing as we usually do and then expect a different result. What BC logging companies do in the southern US (above) looks remarkably similar to what they do in BC. The big differences are that in BC, the trees are publicly owned and the companies are highly subsidized. A JANUARY 16 ARTICLE by Nelson Bennett stated that: “Alberta oil and gas producers made windfall profits on high oil and natural gas prices and B.C. forestry majors banked some record profits on high lumber prices in 2022.” Record profits? Didn’t Canfor just close a mill with the loss of 300 jobs due to poor market conditions? Any prudent person or wise company would, after making record profits for consecutive years, put some money aside for potential future market slumps. Or at least they should. The occurrence of such business cycles is not only expected but should be anticipated and prepared for. Rainy days always happen. When companies regularly disburse their profits to shareholders or spend them on purchasing foreign timber companies, these are their business decisions and they must accept responsibility for them. Is this the record of fluctuating timber supply in BC? No, it’s the record of price fluctuations for wood products since 2020. Low prices generally trigger a call by industry and workers for greater government subsidization, lower stumpage rates and less conservation. Usually, government caves in to the pressure. However, when they instead insist the BC government should bail them out of a business slump with monetary grants or with more and cheaper fibre—so they can continue making record profits and, again, disburse them to shareholders and buy more foreign timber companies—this pressure should be ignored. The situation these companies are in was created by them and the people of BC should not be expected to bail them out. In a recent article about the closure of Canfor’s pulp and paper mill in Prince George, Hiren Mansukhani quoted Ben Parfitt: “When you see the company talking about lack of access to cost competitive fibre, that really translates into one very simple thing. There are not enough trees remaining to be logged that have sufficient commercial value to support the industry…Companies are having to go further and further and further in search of logs.” Ben is right, but that’s not the full story. The companies actively participated in the process that caused the demise of their enterprises. The BC government is only at fault to the extent that they provided the companies with various ongoing subsidies, and that enabled the companies to operate profitably for many years. The companies now want their usual level of subsidies to not only continue, but to be raised. Raised significantly. The government should never have provided such generous public assistance (funds and fibre) to private companies in the first place. And government should not continue to do so now as this would only delay the inevitable and much more painful collapse that will happen in the near future. Helping any company to continue harvesting an ever diminishing supply of trees in BC is neither economically sensible nor environmentally wise. Nor is it in the best interests of the people of BC. Firmer direction by government is especially needed since the forest companies created their problems when they invested in and purchased over 45 foreign mills, most of which are in the southern US. The land there is flat, so logging costs are lower than in BC. The weather there is warm and wet and that means annual growth in the forests often exceeds ten cubic metres per hectare. Labor is cheap. Now with timber supply increasingly distant from their BC mills, Canadian companies can only compete with their own US mills if the BC government continues to bail them out with subsidies. Enough. Our government should ignore the logging industry’s lamentations and requests for ever more handouts.
  9. Fred Marshall
    More information about "As California, too, gets schmucked by an atmospheric river, an appeal to BC's Chief Forester Shane Berg"
    The atmospheric river of November 2021 in BC caused at least $6 billion in damage. Over-exploitation of BC forests amplified this climate-change-induced effect. Will BC’s new chief forester ignore the threat over-logging presents in this new era of climate instability? Or reduce the cut? An intense low pressure area off the coast of California was pumping an atmospheric river toward the state on January 4, 2023. Good morning Shane: The entire world, including British Columbia, has been and continues to be, subject to climatic events that cause millions to billions of dollars of damage and the tragic loss of an ever increasing number of human lives. It is irresponsible for anyone, especially a high-ranking government official such as yourself, who has significant say and control over how BC’s forests are managed, to refuse to make appropriate allowances for both past and future events. Such measures/allowances should include a judicious mix of the following: Prescribing various silviculture measures such as limiting the size and extent of cut-blocks across the landscape. Reducing the extent of roads present on the landscape by properly deactivating old ones and limiting the extent of new ones. Reducing the allowable annual cut (AAC) in BC to truly sustainable levels including all associated values such as fish, wildlife, water, soil, aesthetics, old growth so all are appropriately protected and any and all species at risk can be and are managed so they are removed from the “At Risk” list in a timely manner. No more should ever be added to it. Appropriately considering the cumulative impacts upon the landscape which have significantly changed the natural makeup and nature of the landscapes across BC and reduced its natural resistance to climatic events. Making judicious use of the Precautionary Principle in the timber supply review AAC determination process so that all values present on the landscape are well protected with a reasonable margin of reserve set aside as a form of natural insurance that strengthens the inherent ability of the forested landscape of BC to adequately absorb and/or mitigate the negative impacts of both human incursions and naturally-occurring events on BC’s landscape. This is logical because BC’s forests, if well and properly managed, have the inherent ability to significantly mitigate the impacts of all climatic events including heavy rainfall events, extremes in temperatures—either high or low, drought and/or high winds. BC has recently experienced all of these events, albeit relatively locally although over different geographic areas. We personally use the Precautionary Principle in our everyday lives so that we can and do experience safe, healthy, wholesome and happy lives. We do this by reducing the several risks to which we are exposed as we go about our daily tasks. To fail to live by this principle would be irresponsible and foolhardy. In recent timber supply review AAC determinations the previous chief forester refused to consider any of the above factors in her AAC determinations. Many believe these adamant refusals were not in the public interest. We therefore request that you appropriately consider all of them in your pending and future AAC Determinations. By doing so you will be proactively demonstrating respectful regard not only for the inherent values of our forests but also for the interests of the people of BC.
  10. Fred Marshall
    What is also painfully obvious is that conducting harvesting and road construction 5 times over the next 300 years creates 5 times as much Carbon as does doing this once! A fact that the forest industry and compatriots (i.e. some UBC faculty!) studiously avoid mentioning. These numbers need to be added to the graph. I have spent a lot of time travelling through Interfor's TFL 8 and associated operating areas in the Boundary TSA and, over their ownership period of the last 12-15 years of the Boundary forests, they have continually created extensive and very large clearcuts and built thousands of kilometers of roads and via their operations have significantly degraded these (OUR) forests. Over this time they have created many NSR areas and, as per a recent FREP report, degraded the south block---comprising ~ 1/2 of their TFL-8-- so that the majority of the riparian areas situated therein are NOT PROPERLY FUNCTIONING! The following summary statement from Section 5.1.1 Riparian/stream condition: not properly functioning of this report states that: "The Boundary Creek watershed was the largest in this study, with 21 sub-catchments sampled within the assessment polygon. Overall, the entire watershed was ranked as not properly functioning for the riparian/ stream assessment, mainly because of the very high levels of human-caused riparian disturbance across the watershed (Table 6). Forestry was identified as the main development activity upstream in all but one of the sub catchments, where agriculture was dominant, and there are more than 100 road crossings over streams in the watershed. The total proportion of the watershed affected by development was estimated by the assessors at 56% using aerial imagery and spatial layers." In Diane Nicholl's recent TSR AAC Determination for this TFL she made absolutely no allowances for: The degraded condition of these riparian areas as indicated by the FREP report. The increased areas of NSR Climate change and--- Cumulative Effects on the landscape --even though a comprehensive CE analysis report of the entire Boundary TSA was recently been completed. And, as usual, she included her pathetically impractical statement that it would be inappropriate for her to use either common sense or logic to apply the precautionary principle and reduce the AAC to a more sensible, safer and sustainable level. And this even though the Boundary area experienced a catastrophic flood in 2018 causing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage and leaving hundreds of very distraught homeowners whose homes have since been confiscated by the City of Grand Forks with some compensation for such taking. And yet the AAC was maintained at it's past level and hence Clearcutting continues unabated across the landscape thus ever increasing the risk of more watershed damage and devastating floods. In spite of all the dikes that are being built around the city of Grand Forks it may still incur future flood damage. Several years ago large sums of money were spent doing "Watershed Restoration Work" in the Boundary area to address riparian degradation caused mainly by logging and road building. Much of this money was used to create in-river and in-stream rock and log structures to deflect water away from eroding banks. Now--- many of these structures have fallen apart and are the cause of ever more bank erosion. See attached pictures of three log structure deteriorating in the Kettle River. The road located to the right of the pictures has since been washed away and is no longer accessible. Some entity has dumped several loads on the edge of the road in the hopes that---as the bank erodes--these rocks will fall into the river and ---hopefully stop the erosion. Fat to no chance of this happening. The next road in the path of river is the main highway between Kelowna and Rock creek--Hwy 33. We'll see what happens over the next few years. The picture of the degraded creek depicts a typical stream reach that is downstream of TFL-8! Unfortunately, the above scenarios are very sad examples of what is happening across BC---with such happenings aided and abetted and inherently supported by the Chief Forester of the day who continually approves AACs that are unsustainable and pose an ongoing threat to the future well-being of BC. We depend on our forested landscapes for virtually every facet of ecosystem services that these ---OUR---forests provide. Without our healthy, properly functioning forests we are doomed to experience ever more unnatural disasters occurring everywhere across BC.
  11. Fred Marshall
  12. Fred Marshall
    More information about "The logging industry complains about losing jobs, but it can't fill existing openings"
    Protesting forestry workers block road, claiming their jobs are threatened by old-growth deferrals I RECENTLY CHECKED the Association of BC Forest Professionals job listings and while I didn’t count them all, there are approximately 100 listed. Likely several more that aren’t listed! And ditto for jobs in most any profession. Employers can’t find enough people to fill all the jobs available. In the Boundary area, the local nurseries—who have a variety of jobs available—must bring in many temporary foreign workers every year because no local people want the available jobs. So the Mexicans return year after year and are happy to be well-employed. The forestry industry’s pathetic mantra is that they must be allowed to continue extirpating BC’s remaining old-growth forests or the industry will lose another 20,000 jobs—or whatever number is their favourite for that day. So what happens when the old growth is gone? No forests and no jobs for sure! That doesn’t sound like a very good deal for anyone. A close acquaintance of mine is a woods foreman for a lower mainland logging company; he absolutely cannot find employees to do any work and he has several job openings all the time. If any forestry-related jobs are lost, they are easily replaced as there are many jobs available in the market place; the government has already dedicated millions of dollars to retrain anybody who wants to remain gainfully employed so they can do so. And there are similarly many dollars available for those who wish to take advantage of the early-retirement opportunities. Fred Marshall is a forester and Woodlot Licence tenure holder in the Boundary region.
  13. Fred Marshall
    Yes, for sure, several people should make a formal ethics complaint against Diane Nicholls and her senior staff for not appropriately doing work that upholds the Public Interest as paramount. Instead the Roundup/Aspen work was done to benefit the forest industry as paramount and as such was completely unethical. Unfortunately, while all professional organizations and their members (Registrants) are bound by the PGA act and their respective Codes of Ethics to uphold the public interest as paramount in all aspects of their work, I have found the ABCFP to be inordinately aligned with the forest industry instead of the people of BC. What a shame.
  14. Fred Marshall
    Yes, for sure, several people should make a formal ethics complaint against Diane Nicholls and her senior staff for not appropriately doing work that upholds the Public Interest as paramount. Instead the Roundup/Aspen work was done to benefit the forest industry as paramount and as such was completely unethical. Unfortunately, while all professional organizations and their members (Registrants) are bound by the PGA act and their respective Codes of Ethics to uphold the public interest as paramount in all aspects of their work, I have found the ABCFP to be inordinately aligned with the forest industry instead of the people of BC. What a shame.
  15. Fred Marshall
    Herb, your comments are right on. This report contains lots of biased flaws and expectations. However Chief Forester Diane Nicholls somehow believes that her “expectations” will be honoured and met by Interfor without any valid reasons to support such beliefs. Interfor has NOT met the expectations she listed in her previous TSR paper. Why should they do so now? She has no valid reason to base any part of her AAC determination on the chance that they will be honoured and fulfilled when they very likely won’t. I have completed a quick review of the TFL-8 AAC determination paper and will do a more in-depth analysis shortly and report on same. While there are several aspects that indicate an inappropriate bias towards keeping the AAC as high as possible for as long as possible—three aspects are especially relevant. These are: 1. Re making allowances for climate change—the chief forester’s statement in this regard is: “I have not accounted for them in this AAC determination”. 2. A formal cumulative effects report for the entire Boundary area was completed in 2019. The chief forester’s statement in this regard is: “No analysis of cumulative effects was conducted as part of this timber supply analysis.” These positions completely ignore the minister’s direction statements which said that the chief forester should ensure the “TSR process incorporates the best available information on climate change and the cumulative effects of multiple activities on the land base and explores management options that align with established climate change strategies, adaptation and mitigation practices”. Clearly these requests made by the minister of forests represent the public interest in these areas, yet the chief forester ignored them. How can she ethically do this? 3. Provincial log specs vs. Interfor’s log specs: Concerns were stated that Interfor’s log specs varied significantly from the provincial ones and hence were illegal and these differences should be fully considered in the AAC determination. In response to these concerns Interfor stated that: “....operationally, top size utilization is market driven and set by the licensee.” And, even though this statement actually meant that “top size utilization is an economic decision and hence profit driven and set by the licensee,” the chief forester accepted it! It should also be noted that Interfor's Code of Ethics states that: We conduct ourselves with honesty and integrity. We act in a manner that reflects our company’s high ethical standards. We comply with the law and conduct business that protects and enhances our company’s reputation. Hmmm? Obviously some anomalies exist. Lots of other comments/examples to follow; however these three provide an indication of the entire thrust of this document which supports Interfor’s over-riding objective relative to their TFL—i.e. to keep the AAC as high as possible for as long as possible regardless of the risks involved. And to do so notwithstanding what they say in their Code of Ethics. And the chief forester’s AAC determination obviously supports the attainment of Interfor’s objectives. Obviously, the TSR AAC determination process needs mega changes. Yet formal requests to appoint an independent 3-person panel to formally review this process and recommend changes have been ignored.
  16. Fred Marshall
    Herb, your comments are right on. This report contains lots of biased flaws and expectations. However Chief Forester Diane Nicholls somehow believes that her “expectations” will be honoured and met by Interfor without any valid reasons to support such beliefs. Interfor has NOT met the expectations she listed in her previous TSR paper. Why should they do so now? She has no valid reason to base any part of her AAC determination on the chance that they will be honoured and fulfilled when they very likely won’t. I have completed a quick review of the TFL-8 AAC determination paper and will do a more in-depth analysis shortly and report on same. While there are several aspects that indicate an inappropriate bias towards keeping the AAC as high as possible for as long as possible—three aspects are especially relevant. These are: 1. Re making allowances for climate change—the chief forester’s statement in this regard is: “I have not accounted for them in this AAC determination”. 2. A formal cumulative effects report for the entire Boundary area was completed in 2019. The chief forester’s statement in this regard is: “No analysis of cumulative effects was conducted as part of this timber supply analysis.” These positions completely ignore the minister’s direction statements which said that the chief forester should ensure the “TSR process incorporates the best available information on climate change and the cumulative effects of multiple activities on the land base and explores management options that align with established climate change strategies, adaptation and mitigation practices”. Clearly these requests made by the minister of forests represent the public interest in these areas, yet the chief forester ignored them. How can she ethically do this? 3. Provincial log specs vs. Interfor’s log specs: Concerns were stated that Interfor’s log specs varied significantly from the provincial ones and hence were illegal and these differences should be fully considered in the AAC determination. In response to these concerns Interfor stated that: “....operationally, top size utilization is market driven and set by the licensee.” And, even though this statement actually meant that “top size utilization is an economic decision and hence profit driven and set by the licensee,” the chief forester accepted it! It should also be noted that Interfor's Code of Ethics states that: We conduct ourselves with honesty and integrity. We act in a manner that reflects our company’s high ethical standards. We comply with the law and conduct business that protects and enhances our company’s reputation. Hmmm? Obviously some anomalies exist. Lots of other comments/examples to follow; however these three provide an indication of the entire thrust of this document which supports Interfor’s over-riding objective relative to their TFL—i.e. to keep the AAC as high as possible for as long as possible regardless of the risks involved. And to do so notwithstanding what they say in their Code of Ethics. And the chief forester’s AAC determination obviously supports the attainment of Interfor’s objectives. Obviously, the TSR AAC determination process needs mega changes. Yet formal requests to appoint an independent 3-person panel to formally review this process and recommend changes have been ignored.
  17. Fred Marshall
    Herb, your comments are right on. This report contains lots of biased flaws and expectations. However Chief Forester Diane Nicholls somehow believes that her “expectations” will be honoured and met by Interfor without any valid reasons to support such beliefs. Interfor has NOT met the expectations she listed in her previous TSR paper. Why should they do so now? She has no valid reason to base any part of her AAC determination on the chance that they will be honoured and fulfilled when they very likely won’t. I have completed a quick review of the TFL-8 AAC determination paper and will do a more in-depth analysis shortly and report on same. While there are several aspects that indicate an inappropriate bias towards keeping the AAC as high as possible for as long as possible—three aspects are especially relevant. These are: 1. Re making allowances for climate change—the chief forester’s statement in this regard is: “I have not accounted for them in this AAC determination”. 2. A formal cumulative effects report for the entire Boundary area was completed in 2019. The chief forester’s statement in this regard is: “No analysis of cumulative effects was conducted as part of this timber supply analysis.” These positions completely ignore the minister’s direction statements which said that the chief forester should ensure the “TSR process incorporates the best available information on climate change and the cumulative effects of multiple activities on the land base and explores management options that align with established climate change strategies, adaptation and mitigation practices”. Clearly these requests made by the minister of forests represent the public interest in these areas, yet the chief forester ignored them. How can she ethically do this? 3. Provincial log specs vs. Interfor’s log specs: Concerns were stated that Interfor’s log specs varied significantly from the provincial ones and hence were illegal and these differences should be fully considered in the AAC determination. In response to these concerns Interfor stated that: “....operationally, top size utilization is market driven and set by the licensee.” And, even though this statement actually meant that “top size utilization is an economic decision and hence profit driven and set by the licensee,” the chief forester accepted it! It should also be noted that Interfor's Code of Ethics states that: We conduct ourselves with honesty and integrity. We act in a manner that reflects our company’s high ethical standards. We comply with the law and conduct business that protects and enhances our company’s reputation. Hmmm? Obviously some anomalies exist. Lots of other comments/examples to follow; however these three provide an indication of the entire thrust of this document which supports Interfor’s over-riding objective relative to their TFL—i.e. to keep the AAC as high as possible for as long as possible regardless of the risks involved. And to do so notwithstanding what they say in their Code of Ethics. And the chief forester’s AAC determination obviously supports the attainment of Interfor’s objectives. Obviously, the TSR AAC determination process needs mega changes. Yet formal requests to appoint an independent 3-person panel to formally review this process and recommend changes have been ignored.
  18. Fred Marshall
    More information about "7 steps to take BC forestry into a sustainable future"
    An open letter to John Horgan, Katrine Conroy and Nathan Cullen AS WE EMBARK ON A NEW YEAR the following items should be at the top of your forestry-related agenda. What we (actually you, as our representatives) do during 2022 relative to our forests, will have profound and likely irreversible affects on the status and future well-being of our forests and related resources. I therefore hope you will approach several items that need addressing in a logical, timely and somewhat sequential manner that ensures all aspects will be appropriately dealt with. 1. Formally protecting additional areas The overall goal for BC’s formally dedicated protected areas should be in line with, and complement, the federal goal of having 30 percent of Canada formally protected by 2030. As BC is, by far, the most ecologically diverse province in Canada, the protected area goal for it should be at least 40 percent and preferably 50 percent. The federal government has made available $2.3 billion to enable the attainment of the 30-30 goal. BC should apply for at least $1 billion, and likely more, to assist them in reaching their 40-50 percent goal. Such funds can be used, at least in part, to compensate those forest licensees who lose allowable annual cut (AAC) via the tenure take-back process. All areas to be protected must be selected and designated as being formally protected before the other items listed below can be addressed. In this regard, a formal protected area strategy should be developed for BC to ensure the areas to be protected meet the appropriate criteria for same (i.e. old-growth areas—or those with other high values such as being a rare or endangered ecosystem, etc). The upper Argonaut Valley (Photo: Eddie Petryshen) 2. Taking back AAC from forest licensees The province should determine how much area and associated AAC should be taken back from the forest licensees based on the areas required (i.e. timber harvesting land base (THLB) or non-THLB areas) to achieve the 40-50 percent protected area goal and the new provincial AAC reallocations. The provincial government should use an incentive-based system, at least in part, to determine who should contribute what amount of AAC to the take-back volume. For example, the major forest companies and the BC government have long promised to “add value” to the logs they harvest. However, with few exceptions, the large forest companies have done nothing meaningful in this respect. Rather, they have used their profits made in BC to “add-value” to their profit statements and to purchase sawmills elsewhere. For example, Interfor, one of the largest forest companies in BC, has only 18 percent of its total forestry-related investments located in BC, while 82 percent are located elsewhere. And it derives its BC profits solely via manufacturing dimensional lumber. This is not a value-added product. However, several of the smaller BC forest companies have spent millions of dollars to truly add value to the logs they harvest. For example, Gorman Brothers of Westbank have long produced 1-inch lumber and use finger-jointing to manufacture regular boards out of very short pieces of lumber which would otherwise be wasted. Kalesnikoff Lumber, located in the south Slocan, recently built a new structure-lam plant which is now in full production. Atco Forest Products, located in Fruitvale, recently added a small-log peeler line to their large-log peeler line and hence add significant value to very low-value logs. All three of these companies are relatively small with both Gorman’s and Kalesnikoff’s being family-owned. Gorman, Kalesnikoff, Atco and other companies in BC that have similarly added value to their sawlog inventory should be appropriately recognized for doing so by being exempt from any AAC take-back obligations. Those who have not should bear the full brunt of the AAC take-back process. Laminated beams produced by Kalesnikoff Lumber (Photo: Kalesnikoff Lumber) 3. Reallocating the AAC take-back volumes Once the areas designated to be formally protected have been removed from the THLB, then the remaining AAC volumes should be allocated as per the following, or some permutation or combination thereof: Indigenous Allocations: 20 percent Community Forests & Woodlots: 20 percent BCTS (preferably via TFLs): 20 percent Forest Licensees (preferably TFLs): 40 percent All should be area-based tenures; non-area-based forest licences should be phased out as they do not support the sustainability principle. The AAC reallocation should facilitate and hasten the end of the US countervail duties. 4. New landscape-level planning The ministry needs to commit to and implement, in a timely manner, a new landscape-level planning regime across BC that is inherently designed to be truly sustainable. As this is a relatively new undertaking, due care must be taken to develop the parameters (i.e. the size of the planning areas, criteria for boundary locations, regulations relevant to the various areas and the associated objectives for each, etc., must all be determined ahead of time). Criteria for how existing tenures may—or should be—modified (boundaries, obligations, names, AAC, etc.) also need to be developed. Perhaps only three main tenure forms should exist—i.e. TFLs, Woodland Licences and Community Forest Licences. As new forest stewardship plans and TFL management plans etc. are being developed, the approval of them for a five-year or longer term complicates the transition process that will enable these existing tenures to transition into the new landscape-level planning regime. 5. Revise the timber supply review (TSR) AAC determination process The TSR AAC determination process must be revised to support the above and ensure that all future AAC’s in BC are truly sustainable. This process has long been outdated and is unsuitable for current and future conditions. A three-person panel should be appointed to review this process and make recommendations for change so that it is responsive to rapidly changing conditions and to the new forest tenure and landscape-planning regimes. In the interim, any TSR AAC determinations completed should only be approved if the new indicated AAC remains the same or less than that as per the previous AAC. It is well known that the current TSR process is designed and utilized to keep the cut as high as possible for as long as possible. This is via the several growth and yield curves and associated algorithms used within the process which focus the harvest on the mature and over-mature (i.e. old growth) stands. As these stands are harvested (liquidated) the AAC automatically drops. Obviously the TSR process in BC does not result in any semblance of forest sustainability; rather, an increasingly unstainable one. These trends are further enabled by the chief forester’s refusal to use the Precautionary Principle in the TSR process to allow for expected future changes i.e. those caused by or related to climatic factors such as floods, fires and/or disease and/or insect outbreaks. And this even though we know the future circumstances will be much different than the present or recent past. As soon as reasonably possible after the new process has been developed, any AACs completed via the interim process which involves no AAC increases, will be redone via the new process. Flooding in Princeton BC in November 2021 6. Zero Net Deforestation policy The long-standing, proposed Zero Net Deforestation policy for BC must be implemented. This policy has been held in limbo and in-the-queue waiting for several years to be made legal and this must now be done. Implementing such legislation fully supports and strengthens the concept and commitment to manage our forests in a sustainable manner. Without such legislation BC’s forest lands, and specifically the THLB, will continue to shrink at an unacceptable rate. This is obviously not in concert with the principles of sustainability. 7. Consultation and collaboration with all relevant indigenous groups Appropriate consultation and collaboration with all relevant Indigenous groups must be undertaken. This is self evident; however an acceptable process to facilitate respectful engagement by all parties still needs to be developed. As you develop regulations to complement your new forestry-related legislation, you must ensure that such regulations duly consider all of the above so all are appropriately addressed and subsequently implemented in a logical, progressive manner. As we well know, everything in nature is connected; hence all policies related to any aspect of nature are also intricately linked and therefore must be well coordinated. Professional forester Fred Marshall was one of the founders of both the Federation of BC Woodlot Associations and the Wood Product Development Council (WPDC). He has also served as federation president and was president of the Boundary Woodlot Association. Fred holds a master’s degree in forestry from Yale, has taught at both Malaspina and Selkirk Colleges and has developed four university-level courses accredited by the ABCFP. He and wife Jane operate a ranch and woodlot near Midway.
  19. Fred Marshall
    More information about "Who should be held responsible for the damages caused by the recent flood events?"
    The massive project to replace BC's primary forests with plantations and managed forests has great costs associated with it. Who should pay for the damage being done? Merritt flooded in November after heavy—but not record-breaking—rains. Widespread clearcutting in the Coldwater watershed was likely a major contributor to the flooding. THE FOREST LICENSEES—including BC Timber Sales—who created the extensive network of clearcuts across BC should be held liable for the major portion of the ensuing flood damage experienced. The same ought to apply to late-summer droughts with their associated damage and related costs. And an assessment of liability for the growing number of large forest fires in BC’s southern Interior needs to be made as well. It is a basic moral and ethical tenet that one who creates chaos with subsequent damage occurring, is responsible, and can and should be held accountable for it. Unfortunately the current governments, at all levels, don’t subscribe to this tenet. So far, the forest licensees refuse to acknowledge that there is any, let alone a definitive, link between the extensive clearcuts dominating BC’s forested landscape and the subsequent floods and summer droughts. And the provincial government blithely accepts this and does the same. Many credible studies show otherwise. As most people are likely aware, a small group of Grand Forks residents have filed a class-action lawsuit against the major forest licensees in the Boundary area, claiming restitution for flood damages incurred in 2018. (See document at end of story). Hopefully, the outcome of this lawsuit will correct the forest licensee oversight and claims of innocence. Perhaps the residents and communities of Princeton and Merritt and the agriculture producers located nearby should file a similar lawsuit. There is strength in numbers. And, because of this very irresponsible and untenable stance by the forest licensees, the process of creating such clearcuts continues unabated across BC today, and will continue tomorrow and into the future at virtually the same rate, or very closes thereto, as it has in the past. At least until all the old growth is gone. And this process is strongly supported by the government. All credible predictions indicate that there will be more episodic weather events accompanied by, or followed closely by, extreme winds, flood and drought events in the near future. Very likely these events will be even more intense than those recently experienced. We all need to convince the BC Government to reduce the allowable annual cut with the attendant extensive clearcuts created also being reduced. In spite of the fact that—as we all know—we subsidize the forest industry (e.g. via the Forest Enhancement funds etc. etc.) as the provincial government continues to pay out millions to billions of dollars to repair all the damage caused by the floods and subsequent droughts. One might call these “hidden” or “indirect” subsidies but, nonetheless, they are still subsidies. A recent estimate put the costs of the damage caused by the recent floods and those to replace and/or repair the losses and damages to be ~ $30 billion dollars! That basically bankrupts BC. If there’s no money in the bank, how will any future such events be “handled”? A information bulletin (see attached document at end of story) on how to make damage claims for flood damage was recently sent out to all ranchers and agriculture producers experiencing flood damage. This form directs them on how to get government to pay them for the damages experienced. This represents an obvious form of subsidies to the forestry and agriculture industries, of whom the cattle ranchers have always been favoured recipients. Ditto for the dikes, roads and bridges being fixed, for which the taxpayers of BC will pay. However, a good part of the costs incurred should be paid for by the forest licensees. Yet they claim innocence and the provincial government blithely agrees with them. More willful blindness! I and several other people have long been asking the government to conduct a formal review of the TSR process as it is seriously flawed and needs mega changes. There are four major issues that the results of this process inherently legitimize and hence enable. These are: The creation of the extensive clearcuts that dominate BC’s landscape today—and which are increasing every day. The construction of an extensive and ever expanding road system to enable the harvesting/clearcutting. There are already close to 700,000 km of resource roads in BC today with more being added daily. The focusing of harvesting on old-growth stands, which results in their rapid extirpation. However, doing so keeps BC’s allowable annual cut at an unsustainable level, albeit for a relatively short time. Certainly a zero-sum game. All of the above are enabled by the timber supply review process. This enabling, as long as it is in play, will determine the future status of BC’s forests and all related resources. Based on past and current experiences, with no meaningful changes in the timber supply review process, the future of BC’s forests is extremely bleak. BC’s forests will, in the future, undoubtedly not be near as healthy, as resilient or as productive as they were or are, even at present. Their present status is obviously not good. As per Einstein’s famous saying: “We cannot keep doing what we have been doing and expect to get different results.” Clearcuts and plantations upstream from Grand Forks in the Kettle River Valley This obviously applies to the timber supply review process (1). Nonetheless, the several requests made to the premier, the relevant deputy and assistant deputy ministers related to forests to conduct a formal review of this process and subsequently change it, have all been denied. If we continue harvesting our forests and building ever more roads to enable this harvesting there is no question that we will experience the following: Increased frequency of abnormal climatic events: Wind storms, rain storms with attendant flood damage, fall droughts with extensive damage to aquatic ecosystems and loss of agriculture crops due to flooding and irrigation restrictions and increasing tree mortality due to insects, diseases and drought stress etc. Loss of transportation infrastructure causing undue harm to everyone in BC due to inability to reach medical facilities, attend to emergencies, to feed and care for livestock, to reduce shortages of food and other essential items. Enormous costs, in the billions of dollars—and rising, required to repair the flood damage and to cover the costs of goods (homes, buildings, fences etc.) damaged or destroyed. We don’t have the financial capability to properly attend to the above. Continued conflict with the Indigenous groups across BC A general breakdown in society due to all of the above. Even if we significantly reduce our allowable annual cut immediately, because of the already degraded state of our forests and impending climatic events, we will continue to experience many of the above effects well into the future. Nonetheless, undertaking a formal review of the timber supply review process and subsequently making significant changes to it is far better done sooner than later. Such undertaking is already, and very obviously, far overdue. Professional forester Fred Marshall was one of the founders of both the Federation of BC Woodlot Associations and the Wood Product Development Council (WPDC). He has also served as federation president and was president of the Boundary Woodlot Association. Fred holds a master’s degree in forestry from Yale, has taught at both Malaspina and Selkirk Colleges and has developed four university-level courses accredited by the ABCFP. He and wife Jane operate a ranch and woodlot near Midway. 1. For example. The just released (Dec. 14, 2021) TSR AAC Determination for TFL 33 indicated an increase in the AAC from 21,000M3 to 23,160M3, a 10% increase. An increase that is largely attributable to the inherent focus of the TSR process to maintain or increase the AAC and, the Chief Forester’s refusal to appropriately use the Precautionary Principle which ignores expected and imminent climatic events. Notice of Civil Claim - FILED Interfor BCTS lawsuit in Boundary TSA.pdf Private_sector_guidelines_Application_for_Compensation_Dec_2021.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...