Taryn Skalbania

James, you must add investigative journalist to your credentials. Had this information been released a few months ago, it could have resulted in the CF's dismissal from Govt. Now we can say good riddance to her. Now that she is off to Drax, we fully understand what we are dealing with—a company that will hire "professionals" that happily abuse the system and easily withhold info that could benefit public good. If this last paragraph of James's piece IS true, is it not enough info to lodge a complaint with the ABCFP? Looks to me like there's plenty of data to back up claims or concern and launch an investigation. "There is little doubt that in the writing and re-writing of this report the power of a critical institution—the Chief Forester’s Office—was intentionally abused. The public interest was undermined. The report was designed to allow a key practice of modern forestry to continue: The maximization of coniferous timber supply by eliminating deciduous species. The risks that glyphosate spraying and conifer-dominated monocrop plantations pose to the future resilience of the landscape, the timber supply, and to public health and safety don’t—evidently—measure up to what’s most important to the current Chief Forester’s Office: the health of forestry company profits." If the CF is alleged to have broken this following ABCFP condition alone, it is grounds for a complaint: ''undermines the principle of holding paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, including the protection of the environment and the promotion of health and safety in the workplace in the manner that reflects the stewardship of a given profession by each regulatory body'' ABCFP also says any other RPFs must report her if they believe she harmed he environment by dumbing down the study. "ABCFP registrants also have a duty to report any instance where the continued practice of professional forestry by another registrant may pose a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health and safety of the public." I have read that many complaints against RPFs get thrown out; can someone comment? Do you believe filing a complaint against the CF is do-able, a possibility? By law the ABCFP MUST investigate every complaint, whether from a group, another RPF or an individual. Wouldn't it be something if the ABCFP opened up their emails Monday April 25th morning and had 150+ separate complaints on CF Nichols during her last week in the TOP RPF position in the province? She leaves government April 30th. Wonder if her new post at DRAX requires RPF certifications? What if they are suspended for the investigations, hmmm! While we are at it, we may as well mention her henchman, project lead Shawn Hedges, former Director of Sustainability and Forestry in the Chief Forester’s Office for his the behind-the-scenes direction being a little less objective, in a briefing note to Forests’ Minister Doug Donaldson. Is he not complicit? Should he be allowed to stay with BCTS? I suppose the greatest fear is the magnitude of what we are facing. If James has uncovered so much deceit in just one small report by so many levels of government and industry, what ELSE is going on around us today and for the past 50 years? We can trust no one, nor anything government shares as research or data. Makes you wonder how much of the Gorley and Merkle report was erased for the public GOOD before the public saw it? Looking forward to more damming evidence in part 2 James.

James, you must add investigative journalist to your credentials. Had this information been released a few months ago, it could have resulted in the CF's dismissal from Govt. Now we can say good riddance to her. Now that she is off to Drax, we fully understand what we are dealing with—a company that will hire "professionals" that happily abuse the system and easily withhold info that could benefit public good. If this last paragraph of James's piece IS true, is it not enough info to lodge a complaint with the ABCFP? Looks to me like there's plenty of data to back up claims or concern and launch an investigation. "There is little doubt that in the writing and re-writing of this report the power of a critical institution—the Chief Forester’s Office—was intentionally abused. The public interest was undermined. The report was designed to allow a key practice of modern forestry to continue: The maximization of coniferous timber supply by eliminating deciduous species. The risks that glyphosate spraying and conifer-dominated monocrop plantations pose to the future resilience of the landscape, the timber supply, and to public health and safety don’t—evidently—measure up to what’s most important to the current Chief Forester’s Office: the health of forestry company profits." If the CF is alleged to have broken this following ABCFP condition alone, it is grounds for a complaint: ''undermines the principle of holding paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, including the protection of the environment and the promotion of health and safety in the workplace in the manner that reflects the stewardship of a given profession by each regulatory body'' ABCFP also says any other RPFs must report her if they believe she harmed he environment by dumbing down the study. "ABCFP registrants also have a duty to report any instance where the continued practice of professional forestry by another registrant may pose a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health and safety of the public." I have read that many complaints against RPFs get thrown out; can someone comment? Do you believe filing a complaint against the CF is do-able, a possibility? By law the ABCFP MUST investigate every complaint, whether from a group, another RPF or an individual. Wouldn't it be something if the ABCFP opened up their emails Monday April 25th morning and had 150+ separate complaints on CF Nichols during her last week in the TOP RPF position in the province? She leaves government April 30th. Wonder if her new post at DRAX requires RPF certifications? What if they are suspended for the investigations, hmmm! While we are at it, we may as well mention her henchman, project lead Shawn Hedges, former Director of Sustainability and Forestry in the Chief Forester’s Office for his the behind-the-scenes direction being a little less objective, in a briefing note to Forests’ Minister Doug Donaldson. Is he not complicit? Should he be allowed to stay with BCTS? I suppose the greatest fear is the magnitude of what we are facing. If James has uncovered so much deceit in just one small report by so many levels of government and industry, what ELSE is going on around us today and for the past 50 years? We can trust no one, nor anything government shares as research or data. Makes you wonder how much of the Gorley and Merkle report was erased for the public GOOD before the public saw it? Looking forward to more damming evidence in part 2 James.

This guy makes forestry facts and figures fun, while clearing up industry and government deception, another NERDY ABOUR NATURE brief video . A few months back, the BC Government announced new data revealing that there are only 11.1 million hectares of oldgrowth forest remaining in BC, which is a tough figure to visualize and kind of sounds like a lot, right?! Yet when we break down the numbers of the type, size and quality of these varying forest ecosystems, we can easily see that it’s actually not that much compared to the rest of the forestland across the province…so I thought I’d clear it all up here! First off, the term ‘old growth’ here is defined by industry standards of 250yrs old on the coast and 140 yrs old in the interior, so it’s not exclusively primary forest that has never been logged. There are also varying types of old growth forest ranging from high-productivity to low-productivity forest types - LPOG tends to be short, scraggly old trees without a lot of market value or demand for being logged, whereas HPOG is the tall, rich, biodiverse forests made famous here in BC with quality wood that is still being logged right now. New docs from the government have tried to simplify these definitions into not at risk forest (LPOG) and at risk forest (HPOG). Of the remaining 11.1mh of oldgrowth left, only 3.5mh are currently protected, leaving 7.6mh unprotected. 3.6mh of that is considered to be not at risk forest, leaving 5mh of at risk forest, or just over 8% of all the forests in BC. Current deferrals only look at POTENTIALLY sparing 2.6mh of those 5mh for two years while the remaining 2.4mh continue to be logged. Of the highest productivity forest left in BC, much of which still remains unprotected, there is only 400,000 hectares left, or .8% of all the forestland in BC. For perspective, the Canadian government has committed to preserving 30% of biodiversity by 2030 as part of climate action agreements, yet even at this point in time we only have 8% of our healthiest forests remaining, which continue to be cut down as you read this. Many industry-backed organizations have jumped on this 11.1mh figure in an effort to mislead and confuse you in various posts and ad campaigns, but it’s important to remember that this figure is only one cherry picked piece of data, and when we look at the reality of the situation we’re in, we see a different picture than the one they’re trying to paint. So next time you see or hear of someone spouting this nonsense, feel free to drop the real numbers on them, because the sooner we can all acknowledge the reality of the state we’re in, then the more we’ll all be able to act to create a better future for us all, here in the real world. *sources can be found via my website

I find former Premier Harcourt's interview statements bewildering, does NDP alliance with industry take precedence over fact? He clearly has not been into the Peachland watershed recently? I used to hold him up as a ''good guy'' and told him as much in person at the UVIC Forest Summit he, Bob Peart and John Innes organized. Has Harcourt become an apologist for industry too! Shame! I think I will send him some photos of recent clear-cuts. Very strange comments. We only CLEARCUT , I think selection logging counts for less that 10% of trees harvested. Can someone confirm that %? While Harcourt's claim that clear cutting died in the 90s is brutal, what is most disturbing is the silence of John Innes, he sat by as the former Dean of the Faculty of Forestry and stayed silent, the guy who taught clear cut loggers their art for 11 years (how to cut the most trees, in the shortest time using the least labour to get to the closest mill for the cheapest price and make the greatest profit) sat silent. Bewildering Its all in the language: Wildfire mitigation Clear cuts with retention Old Growth Management Areas Wildlife Tree Retention Areas Partial cuts, Small block harvesting A clear cut is a clear cut is a clear cut... even if government reps. and forestry publicists insist on using use industry jargon, fancy terms and other misleading lingo. It is all clear-cut logging in disguise. View 7 minutes of video from Will Koop, BC Tap Water Alliance, documenting the clear cuts as they hammer our watershed year after year from 1984 until present day.

Aren't we all getting a little fed up with media just printing government press releases, quoting industry facts, regurgitation instead of investigation, why not question their sources? I am- so wrote a letter to journalists about it. https://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_3d36557c-94f6-11ec-b5d7-d333b4fe7404.html?utm_source=kelownadailycourier.ca&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1645711204&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline Timber supply cut may not be what it seems Dear Editor: Re: Interfor takes haircut on Boundary harvesting rights (Feb. 12) Journalists reporting on recent announcements by the chief forester on new allowable annual cuts (AAC) for Interfor’s tree farm licence (TFL) 48, for the Okanagan timber supply area (TSA) and for Canoe Forest Products merely parrot what the chief forester says in a press release without question. Has the logging actually been reduced in the Kettle River basin as a result of a reduction in the cut for TFL 8 and the Okanagan TSA? The chief forester provides two reasons for a reduction of the cut in TFL 8: (1) management measures that address Indigenous interests; and (2) the accumulation of unharvested timber volume in the TFL amounting to an undercut of 115,987 cubic metres. But why the undercut in TFL 8? The likely reason is that Interfor has been high-grading the timber and has run out of high-quality timber. Is the undercut merely a measure of how plantations — the driver of timber supply — are failing as the Forest Practices Board pointed out for the Okanagan TSA? “Indigenous interests” likely means the government intends to transfer cut from Interfor to local First Nations. This does not lower the overall cut or rate of logging in the Kettle River basin; it just moves it around on paper. But does the undercut actually exist on the ground? For decades, scientific studies have shown that industrial forestry through clearcutting and an unsustainable rate of logging in B.C. is: — Destroying terrestrial and aquatic habitats, extirpating species and driving others to extinction; — Fouling drinking water for communities; — Ravaging soil and the fungal life necessary for forest health; — Releasing vast amounts of carbon from below and above ground into the atmosphere – more than any other economic sector in B.C.; — Disturbing large and small watersheds both of which are highly sensitive to clearcut logging resulting in flooding and landslides; and, — Causing in part the large, rapidly moving and intense wildfires of recent years. Why haven’t journalists asked the chief forester how all the preceding harms have been considered in determining an AAC? To mitigate against these harms, the chief forester and the provincial government will need first to deal with the biggest culprit in B.C., which is the logging industry. With public safety at serious risk from the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, a concerned and alarmed public needs the assistance of journalists in asking the right questions and in seeking informed answers. Taryn Skalbania, Peachland TS Letter Daily-Courier Feb21-22 Final.docx

Aren't we all getting a little fed up with media just printing government press releases, quoting industry facts, regurgitation instead of investigation, why not question their sources? I am- so wrote a letter to journalists about it. https://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_3d36557c-94f6-11ec-b5d7-d333b4fe7404.html?utm_source=kelownadailycourier.ca&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1645711204&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline Timber supply cut may not be what it seems Dear Editor: Re: Interfor takes haircut on Boundary harvesting rights (Feb. 12) Journalists reporting on recent announcements by the chief forester on new allowable annual cuts (AAC) for Interfor’s tree farm licence (TFL) 48, for the Okanagan timber supply area (TSA) and for Canoe Forest Products merely parrot what the chief forester says in a press release without question. Has the logging actually been reduced in the Kettle River basin as a result of a reduction in the cut for TFL 8 and the Okanagan TSA? The chief forester provides two reasons for a reduction of the cut in TFL 8: (1) management measures that address Indigenous interests; and (2) the accumulation of unharvested timber volume in the TFL amounting to an undercut of 115,987 cubic metres. But why the undercut in TFL 8? The likely reason is that Interfor has been high-grading the timber and has run out of high-quality timber. Is the undercut merely a measure of how plantations — the driver of timber supply — are failing as the Forest Practices Board pointed out for the Okanagan TSA? “Indigenous interests” likely means the government intends to transfer cut from Interfor to local First Nations. This does not lower the overall cut or rate of logging in the Kettle River basin; it just moves it around on paper. But does the undercut actually exist on the ground? For decades, scientific studies have shown that industrial forestry through clearcutting and an unsustainable rate of logging in B.C. is: — Destroying terrestrial and aquatic habitats, extirpating species and driving others to extinction; — Fouling drinking water for communities; — Ravaging soil and the fungal life necessary for forest health; — Releasing vast amounts of carbon from below and above ground into the atmosphere – more than any other economic sector in B.C.; — Disturbing large and small watersheds both of which are highly sensitive to clearcut logging resulting in flooding and landslides; and, — Causing in part the large, rapidly moving and intense wildfires of recent years. Why haven’t journalists asked the chief forester how all the preceding harms have been considered in determining an AAC? To mitigate against these harms, the chief forester and the provincial government will need first to deal with the biggest culprit in B.C., which is the logging industry. With public safety at serious risk from the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, a concerned and alarmed public needs the assistance of journalists in asking the right questions and in seeking informed answers. Taryn Skalbania, Peachland TS Letter Daily-Courier Feb21-22 Final.docx

Aren't we all getting a little fed up with media just printing government press releases, quoting industry facts, regurgitation instead of investigation, why not question their sources? I am- so wrote a letter to journalists about it. https://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_3d36557c-94f6-11ec-b5d7-d333b4fe7404.html?utm_source=kelownadailycourier.ca&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1645711204&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline Timber supply cut may not be what it seems Dear Editor: Re: Interfor takes haircut on Boundary harvesting rights (Feb. 12) Journalists reporting on recent announcements by the chief forester on new allowable annual cuts (AAC) for Interfor’s tree farm licence (TFL) 48, for the Okanagan timber supply area (TSA) and for Canoe Forest Products merely parrot what the chief forester says in a press release without question. Has the logging actually been reduced in the Kettle River basin as a result of a reduction in the cut for TFL 8 and the Okanagan TSA? The chief forester provides two reasons for a reduction of the cut in TFL 8: (1) management measures that address Indigenous interests; and (2) the accumulation of unharvested timber volume in the TFL amounting to an undercut of 115,987 cubic metres. But why the undercut in TFL 8? The likely reason is that Interfor has been high-grading the timber and has run out of high-quality timber. Is the undercut merely a measure of how plantations — the driver of timber supply — are failing as the Forest Practices Board pointed out for the Okanagan TSA? “Indigenous interests” likely means the government intends to transfer cut from Interfor to local First Nations. This does not lower the overall cut or rate of logging in the Kettle River basin; it just moves it around on paper. But does the undercut actually exist on the ground? For decades, scientific studies have shown that industrial forestry through clearcutting and an unsustainable rate of logging in B.C. is: — Destroying terrestrial and aquatic habitats, extirpating species and driving others to extinction; — Fouling drinking water for communities; — Ravaging soil and the fungal life necessary for forest health; — Releasing vast amounts of carbon from below and above ground into the atmosphere – more than any other economic sector in B.C.; — Disturbing large and small watersheds both of which are highly sensitive to clearcut logging resulting in flooding and landslides; and, — Causing in part the large, rapidly moving and intense wildfires of recent years. Why haven’t journalists asked the chief forester how all the preceding harms have been considered in determining an AAC? To mitigate against these harms, the chief forester and the provincial government will need first to deal with the biggest culprit in B.C., which is the logging industry. With public safety at serious risk from the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, a concerned and alarmed public needs the assistance of journalists in asking the right questions and in seeking informed answers. Taryn Skalbania, Peachland TS Letter Daily-Courier Feb21-22 Final.docx

Hi All, I agree with what Trevor said here, I to tried explain the same thing happens to me, I used that lame travel analogy with you all the other night: If I visit to a town and there is no 'town centre', 'clock tower', 'map', 'YOU are HERE" sign and directions of highlights to visit, I am lost and sometimes do not want to even explore, I have Fear FO MISSING OUT , so unless I kwon all of what there is I do not even want to start, or I do not know where to go 1st , where to start, SO...the home page must be an all inclusive 'map', simple enough for non techy community grass roots folks who barley use a computer and who have been directed to EA as a place to start to save their OG or community watersheds, caribou or recreation trails, or mid of the road folks who just heard of FRPA, FSPs, FES, AAC, TSA, CSI, CSA, IDF, WUI and now NEED and want to start to take the deeper dive towards forestry reforms, and finally those already entrenched, wanting to dig deeper, blow whistles, share stories and science or learn new tools. IF site is too simple we lose those, if site is too complex we lose everyone else, I guess a govt site is a typical example of simple enough for a moron, meaty enough for an academic. EA must cater to all This will make the EA site HUGE though , to cover all the bases, it must be accessible for every single person in bc

Hi All, I agree with what Trevor said here, I to tried explain the same thing happens to me, I used that lame travel analogy with you all the other night: If I visit to a town and there is no 'town centre', 'clock tower', 'map', 'YOU are HERE" sign and directions of highlights to visit, I am lost and sometimes do not want to even explore, I have Fear FO MISSING OUT , so unless I kwon all of what there is I do not even want to start, or I do not know where to go 1st , where to start, SO...the home page must be an all inclusive 'map', simple enough for non techy community grass roots folks who barley use a computer and who have been directed to EA as a place to start to save their OG or community watersheds, caribou or recreation trails, or mid of the road folks who just heard of FRPA, FSPs, FES, AAC, TSA, CSI, CSA, IDF, WUI and now NEED and want to start to take the deeper dive towards forestry reforms, and finally those already entrenched, wanting to dig deeper, blow whistles, share stories and science or learn new tools. IF site is too simple we lose those, if site is too complex we lose everyone else, I guess a govt site is a typical example of simple enough for a moron, meaty enough for an academic. EA must cater to all This will make the EA site HUGE though , to cover all the bases, it must be accessible for every single person in bc

Hi All, I agree with what Trevor said here, I to tried explain the same thing happens to me, I used that lame travel analogy with you all the other night: If I visit to a town and there is no 'town centre', 'clock tower', 'map', 'YOU are HERE" sign and directions of highlights to visit, I am lost and sometimes do not want to even explore, I have Fear FO MISSING OUT , so unless I kwon all of what there is I do not even want to start, or I do not know where to go 1st , where to start, SO...the home page must be an all inclusive 'map', simple enough for non techy community grass roots folks who barley use a computer and who have been directed to EA as a place to start to save their OG or community watersheds, caribou or recreation trails, or mid of the road folks who just heard of FRPA, FSPs, FES, AAC, TSA, CSI, CSA, IDF, WUI and now NEED and want to start to take the deeper dive towards forestry reforms, and finally those already entrenched, wanting to dig deeper, blow whistles, share stories and science or learn new tools. IF site is too simple we lose those, if site is too complex we lose everyone else, I guess a govt site is a typical example of simple enough for a moron, meaty enough for an academic. EA must cater to all This will make the EA site HUGE though , to cover all the bases, it must be accessible for every single person in bc

Hi All, I agree with what Trevor said here, I to tried explain the same thing happens to me, I used that lame travel analogy with you all the other night: If I visit to a town and there is no 'town centre', 'clock tower', 'map', 'YOU are HERE" sign and directions of highlights to visit, I am lost and sometimes do not want to even explore, I have Fear FO MISSING OUT , so unless I kwon all of what there is I do not even want to start, or I do not know where to go 1st , where to start, SO...the home page must be an all inclusive 'map', simple enough for non techy community grass roots folks who barley use a computer and who have been directed to EA as a place to start to save their OG or community watersheds, caribou or recreation trails, or mid of the road folks who just heard of FRPA, FSPs, FES, AAC, TSA, CSI, CSA, IDF, WUI and now NEED and want to start to take the deeper dive towards forestry reforms, and finally those already entrenched, wanting to dig deeper, blow whistles, share stories and science or learn new tools. IF site is too simple we lose those, if site is too complex we lose everyone else, I guess a govt site is a typical example of simple enough for a moron, meaty enough for an academic. EA must cater to all This will make the EA site HUGE though , to cover all the bases, it must be accessible for every single person in bc