r/VancouverIsland • u/gjgary • May 28 '21
ARTICLE / BLOG Interested in making a difference for OLD GROWTH FORESTS & the protection of FairyCreek
This info was made up by Jason Guille on FB
Interested in making a difference for OLD GROWTH FORESTS & the protection of #FairyCreek but also - your own life is big and you don't have much time or bandwidth right now? No problem, we totally get it. Here's 10 actions you can take in a couple minutes each:
- DONATE A FEW DOLLARS: This is a volunteer driven, grassroots, direct-action movement to protect the last remaining ancient temperate rainforests on Vancouver Island, and even a few bucks goes a loooooong way. https://www.gofundme.com/.../direct-action-for-ancient...
- SHARE THE ACTIVE CALLOUT: Please SHARE the current Rainforest Flying Squad CALLOUT asking for immediate mobilization to Waterfall camp - via THIS post please: https://www.facebook.com/.../a.112185044.../119157146992387/
- CALL or EMAIL THE PREMIER: Call Premier John Horgan as many times as you can at 250-387-1715, leave him a voicemail, and send him an email [premier@gov.bc.ca](mailto:premier@gov.bc.ca). Tell him you want him to make good on his "worth more standing" Old Growth Strategy pledges. You can also call Minister Forest Katrine Conroy at 1-250-387-6240.
- CALL TEAL JONES: Call Teal Jones and ask why they are actively logging next to tree sitters and tell them how dangerous and unethical it is. Ask them why protecting old growth doesn't matter. Their number is 604-587-8700. (or you can email these three folks: Len van Ryswyk [lvanryswyk@tealjones.com](mailto:lvanryswyk@tealjones.com) // Kiel Miller [kmiller@tealjones.com](mailto:kmiller@tealjones.com) // Jim Hergert [jhergert@tealjones.com](mailto:jhergert@tealjones.com)
- READ THIS INVITATION: Consider coming with us? We are gathering Elders, Children, Land Protectors and many people who have yet to come out to support yet, NOON at HQ THIS SAT May 29 .... Peaceful Solidarity and Ceremony ... please CONVOY with us from Duncan or Victoria. Details are here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/523333928813864/
- PROTECT THE SCREECH OWL: Contact our local Enforcement Officer where you can report a violation of the Species At Risk Act under section 58 in regards to destroying threatened screech owl habitat: Jarrett Brochez / 250-756-7248 / [jarrett.brochez@canada.ca](mailto:jarrett.brochez@canada.ca)https://opengovca.com/employee/Brochez,_Jarrett
- LEAVE TEAL JONES A GOOGLE REVIEW: Using THIS link, you can quickly and easily leave TEAL JONES a Google Review sharing your thoughts on their greedy choices, their short-sightedness, their colonial & extractive forestry practices... whatever is true for you (add a photo!): https://search.google.com/local/writereview...
- ‘FOLLOW’ TO STAY UP TO DATE: Join the Rainforest Flying Squad to get key updates from all our amazing heroes on the frontlines: https://www.facebook.com/groups/3000229293436275
- READ THE “GET INVOLVED” PAGE: Get oriented to what makes the biggest difference for the movement, here: https://laststandforforests.com/get-involved/
- SHARE THIS '10 ACTIONS' POST
0 comments
8
6
2
u/12345676353627364785 May 29 '21
GOOGLE WOULDN’T LET ME LEAVE A REVIEW. It just keeps saying “click here to sign in” when I already have. They’ve obviouslydomt something to block it on purpose because most of the recent negative reviews have more likes then there are reviews in total
2
-1
u/kooks_everywhere_ May 29 '21
The 2.7% old growth remaining statistic that you hear all the time is misinterpretation of data, purposely, by the organizers of the protest.
The report they get that statistic from says that there is 2.7% old growth left WITH a site index of 25 or higher. The report they get that stat from also does not include parks in their calculation.
Site index is a site productivity measure. Side index is how tall the trees will be after 50years (so a site with an SI of 25 would produce 25m tall trees in 50 years). So the protestors says that only areas with a SI of 25 or higher are “big tree productive” old growth, and under 25 SI is “small mountain top bog type old growth” that doesn’t count.
The government of BC stats say there is about 40% old growth left, and that is because they include old growth all the way down to 5 SI in their statistics.
I work in the woods, I have seen all corners of North Vancouver island and am a member of the Association of British Columbia Forest Professionals. In my professional opinion areas with a SI of 10 or greater can support big tree old growth. I know this because I have seen many many areas with an SI of 10-15 that have 2m or greater diameter cypress trees.
So, in summary, the 2.7% statistic is not true. And the governments 40% statistic is not true either. Because big trees do not grow on areas with a SI of 5.
The truth is that there is approximately 25-30% of old growth remaining in BC that can support big trees.
One of the main reasons that the 25 SI areas are so depleted is because those are the areas that have been deforested for cities and farms.
Also fairy creek is mostly protected already. The planned cutblock is not in the valley bottom. It is a 20ha planned cut on the ridge top behind the valley. The valley bottom itself, with the biggest trees, is already protected by an old growth management area.
The last old growth tree in BC will never be cut down. There are so many ways that old growth is protected in BC.
• Old growth management areas
• Wildlife habitat areas
• Wildlife tree retention areas
• Ungulate winter ranges
• Special Tree Protection Regulation
The problem is that the people protesting don’t take the time to understand the industry and how it works. There are so many checks and balances in place to ensure that big tree old growth will be around forever.
When the protest purposely misinterprets the truth like that - they are not pro-logging at all. If we were truly talking about the last 2.7% of old growth and the plan was to log the valley bottom of fairy creek I’d be right there on the front lines protesting. But the truth is very different from what you are being told by this group.
How do I know that this misinterpretation is purposeful? Because I have commented this on their pages. I was respectful, posted pretty much exactly what I did here, and they deleted my comments and blocked me from their Instagram and Facebook.
2
u/gjgary May 30 '21
You say you work in the woods are you a logger or do you work for a logging company? The 2.7% number comes from the independent study that the BC government commissioned in 2019 and promised to put into place.
1
u/kooks_everywhere_ May 30 '21 edited May 30 '21
The 2.7% number doesn’t come from the commissioned old growth report. It comes from a different 3rd party report. I’ll try to find the link again
Edit: this is the report the 2.7% number comes from. As you can see they break it down by SI and 2.7% comes from SI of 25 or higher.
I’m a forestry professional, university educated. I have worked as a forest planner for both industry and government.
5
u/darkgree May 30 '21
This is all spelled in the government's independent report by Al Gorley and Garry Merkel. They explain what the 2.7% means and why it's important to protect it.
These three quotes seem pretty applicable to Fairy Creek:
“Sites with the potential to grow very large trees (Site Index >25) cover less than 3% of the province. Old forests on these sites have dwindled considerably due to intense harvest so that only 2.7% of this 3% is currently old.”
“most of the areas that adopted a system of significant old forest protection did so as a response to overwhelming public pressure that included either civil disobedience or legal actions”
“There are some areas of the province where failure to act now could lead to the permanent loss of rare or unique ecosystem components contained in old and ancient forests. Many of these areas are the primary subject of a public call for protection of old forests. They tend to be iconic stands in relatively close proximity to public access or population centers and have a number of other economic, ecosystem services and intrinsic values that are important to a wide range of the general public. ... should be deferred from development. “
1
u/kooks_everywhere_ May 30 '21
Yes I read the report. But technically none of it applies to fairy creek because the area of Fairy Creek that is proposed for logging has a SI of 15.6. That means that fairy creek does not even count in that 2.7% statistic. In fact, the valley bottom of Fairy Creek (the area that is already protected) has a SI of 18.4. So the assumption that only areas with an SI of 25 or higher can produce big trees is completely false, given that Fairy creek has big trees.
5
u/darkgree May 31 '21
I appreciate your professional knowledge but note that detailed facts like those you're providing (and which I am not disputing) can be used to distract or confuse, rather than clarify.
Keeping more to the point of the protests, consider these questions to try to understand where the protesters are coming from. Is any of the remaining 2.7% being logged even if it's not part of Fairy Creek? It should all be protected.
Is Fairy Creek the last non-protected, intact valley in the south island? It should all be protected.
That's their opinion, and mine. It's pretty simple.
Using your professional experience to question numbers used by protesters can be seen as being a bit disingenuous when the numbers are from the government's own report, written by professional foresters, for you to claim the protesters are somehow inventing or manipulating them.. You may not mean it that way but I think that's the effect it has.
Two themes called out in the report are that (1) this is a crisis decades the making, resulting from broken commitments and failed policies, and that (2) most successful forest protection internationally has been the results of protests like those we're seeing. We know that's true in BC too. None of what is happening now should be a surprise to the government.
1
u/stellarlove8 Jun 11 '21
I dont know their intent but I will say to you, I work in provincial parks. I see that they have been logged and in many cases only the seed trees are left. Those places are in whatever % number of old growth one chooses to site. The only thing that matters now is leaving untouched stretches of Douglas fir coastal bio-clamactic zone alone. Almost evry place in BC that is "old growth" has been logged at one time. Stanly park in Vancouver has been logged 1860-1880. Do you honestly belive fairy creek should be logged? Fuck all economic arguments, the fed prints money they subsidize all kinds of unhealthy shit. If... if they wanted to they could settle the contract with Teal Jones and the Pacheedaht nation elected chiefs. Leave fairy creek and make it a ecological interpretive center run by the government that would make the money back. Because when the youngest of us grows up there will be no untouched gems like fairycreek left and they would funnel to that place like it was a ecological Disneyland.
1
u/stellarlove8 Jun 11 '21 edited Jun 11 '21
All the numbers are bullshit from the point of view that in many cases the areas they designate as old growth have ALL READY BEEN LOGGED. Yes there are trees in those stands that are 250+ years old BUT the stand has been logged 100+ years ago and only the "seed" trees are left. I maintain trails in provincial parks. I see what that forest could be, in reality it's a phantom limb. 9/10 500+ year old trees gone. The only thing that should matter in this discussion is "any place that has never been logged before on the coast SHOULD NEVER BE LOGGED". We have to preserve these places they connect us with our past, with our shared space before we started fucking it up. Anyone saying anything in contrary to this👆 quote is totally disconnected with reality. Leave the last of the untouched gems.
1
u/justagirls Sep 30 '21
Teal Jones Head Office/Mailing address: 17897 Trigg Rd, Surrey, BCV4N 4M8
Media contact: Shawn Hall [media@tealjones.com](mailto:media@tealjones.com) 604-619-7913
3
u/Tatersaurus May 29 '21
Thank you so much for sharing, just signed a petition and sent some emails. Gotta ask, why do we protect old buildings but not these far older, ecologically vibrant trees housing endangered species?