Gold in them hills

It’s natives and suits versus greens in this new war in the woods

by Nancy Macdonald on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 1:17pm - 34 Comments

Last month, the Squamish Nation okayed a controversial plan to erect a series of billboards on scenic native land. They weren’t just any signboards, but 300-sq.-foot blinking, digital billboards to advertise cellphones and cars. Negative reaction to the planned signs—some of which are set to line the spectacular route to Whistler—was so visceral the band was forced to scale back the design. Its opponents, the Citizens for Responsible Outdoor Advertising, say they are having to take on the role of “guardians of mother nature”—a role traditionally played by their “Squamish neighbours.”

Aboriginals are hardly the typical environmental bogeyman, but Squamish isn’t the only band making environmentalists barking mad. Last month, Coast Tsimshian Resources, a fledgling Aboriginal logging company based in Terrace, B.C., began shipping western hemlock to China. The company, which recently harvested its millionth cubic metre, is already one of the largest licence holders in B.C., with another sale to China in the works, and it has handily given Canada’s blighted logging industry a shot in the arm. But by exporting raw logs—so-called high-volume, low-value industrial forestry—it is igniting controversy. That the company is providing vital jobs and revenue to the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation hasn’t done much to earn it the sympathy of environmentalists. They are “destroying forests, and jobs,” says Wilderness Committee director Ken Wu; like the Sierra Club and ForestEthics, it supports a total ban on raw-log exports.

It’s not just logging. Across the West, First Nations have become major players in all sorts of resource and energy projects. B.C.’s biggest private power project is a $660-million joint venture between Vancouver’s Plutonic Power Corporation and the Klahoose First Nation—the very same band that, in the ’80s, drove forestry giant Interfor out of B.C.’s unspoiled Toba Valley. Much-protested power projects on the Klinaklini, Ashlu and Bulson rivers have strong First Nations support. In the spectacular Coquihalla Pass, the Coldwater Indian Band has partnered with Westscapes Development for a $2-billion ski resort and golf course—to be carved out of harvest grounds at the headwaters of the increasingly threatened Coldwater River. (The band will receive 10 per cent ownership, a seat on the board, and a share of land sales.) In a stunning move last week, B.C.’s isolated Gitxsan tribe announced it will petition Ottawa to drop its Indian status, in return for a bigger prize: a share of resources on ancestral land. For that, it’s willing to hand over reserves, tax exemptions, free housing and financial supports, and the ambition of a separate order of government.

Yes, the ground has shifted considerably since the ’90s, when greens and natives were allies in the fight to beat back industry’s never-ending drive into Canada’s wilds. Today, as natives gain the whip hand over development in their territories, that formidable alliance is coming undone. Increasingly, the former allies are at each other’s throats—and two former enemies, big business and native leaders, are finding common ground. “Ten years ago, a joint venture with a First Nation was seen as an act of corporate enlightenment—or stupidity,” says Ian Gill, president of Ecotrust Canada, an environmental NGO. Industry now sees it as “necessary” to avoid long, costly fights over resource ownership and ensure certainty to investors and banks.

Fittingly, perhaps, the split between natives and greens began at Clayoquot Sound—where their marriage was celebrated a decade and a half ago. Environmentalists and the Nuu-chah-nulth, Clayoquot’s five tribes, had united in 1993 to protect the ancient temperate rainforest from the industrial logging that had razed so much of Vancouver Island. And what an alliance it was. B.C.’s War in the Woods became an international cause célèbre—“one of the defining environmental battles of our time” according to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—recording the largest protests in Canada’s history, and over 800 arrests. Last year, however, when two Aboriginal logging firms, Iisaak Forest Resources and Ma-Mook-Coulson, began clearing logging roads into Clayoquot’s undeveloped valleys, a powerful alliance of brand-name environmental NGOs including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Committee and ForestEthics banded together, threatening a return to its feted blockades. A truce has been called—but it is unlikely to hold for long. “Within a few years, we’ll have to go into the pristine valleys,” says Iisaak spokesperson Gary Johnsen. Otherwise, “neither company will survive.”

The greens are gearing up for the fight—but are also devastated, says Valerie Langer, a founder of ForestEthics. “I’ve been a First Nations advocate for 20 years,” she says. “I got arrested with Chief Earl George—on behalf of the environment, and his rights in his territory. I’ve gone to jail for that.”

More hurt may lie ahead. Logging isn’t the only issue in Clayoquot, home to 1,500-year-old giant cedars, rare sharks and the tiny marbled murrelet, a threatened seabird that uses its wings to “swim” after herring. If a group of business-minded Aboriginals gets its way, the UNESCO biosphere reserve, greens say, will become one of Vancouver Island’s biggest industrial sites. Already, the Ahousaht have allowed nearly two dozen fish farms into the sound; a Synex Energy hydro project is in the works. Last month, Vancouver-based Selkirk Metals Corp. announced approval for exploratory drilling at 11 sites on the sacred Catface Mountain. If that goes ahead, environmentalists say the top third of the 900-m mountain will come off, and Clayoquot Sound, home to more organic matter per hectare than anywhere on the planet, will swallow an industrial-sized port geared to move 300 million tons of waste rock.

“The massive doses of arsenic will wipe out the crabs,” says Michael Mullen, a white-haired whaleboat skipper. “It will chase away the whales. And it will be loud as all hell,” he adds, pointing toward the cone-shaped green mountain visible from the wooden porch of Mermaid’s Tale, his bookshop on the main drag in Tofino, a rustic mini-Maui known for its surf shops and cafés. Mullen, a founder of the non-profit Friends of Clayoquot Sound and a veteran of the blockades, says it is a “tragedy” that First Nations are collaborating in the industrialization of the Sound. “They’re saying, ‘We don’t care anymore: ravage the place. Go ahead and rape me again, just throw a few coins my way first.” Mining royalties are “just another form of welfare,” he adds. “They’re still sitting around. They’re still getting a handout.”

Bookmark and Share
  • North Islander

    Wow, this article seems to have all the jargon that the environmentalist love to say. First off, I highly, highly doubt that the sound's tree age class is 1500 years old. I have worked in the woods long enough to know that these stands of trees are largely uneven aged so the forest has age classes from 1 to 1500. The 1500 are a rarity, and so should be maby put aside for some form of protection. Takes a few minutes for bore a tree to find out.

    Vast clear cuts. So? Fires and windstorms create vast areas where old decaying forest are levelled. I wouldnt be suprised if I found an area in the sound that isnt an even aged class from the natural mode of forest replacement.

    Most of these "green" people dont live in the areas they protest about. The majority of protesters from the 90's war in the wood came from Victoria and Vancouver. Who are they to dictate what the locals do with the land? They think they are so enlighted and educated to change the lived of those who reside in those areas. Its disgusting.

    • Wil

      Here here

    • DaveGreen

      Hear hear

      • Poker Face

        This one.

    • Arbutus T Swindel

      Most of the locals, that actually lived in Clayoquot Sound are against logging and minning. They want rich people like me to come and visit, leave our cash and let the place live for another day. I have explored all over your Province, I come up there because we destroyed it all in Washington State. We killed the goose that layed the golden egg. Tofino needs to fight to the bitter end to save the goose.

  • North Islander

    Ken Wu grew up wanting to be an enviromentalist. Basically to be one you need conflict in order to get those ignorant of the scientific issues to donate to his "worthy cause". Creating fear is their main motive. Fear of losing something invaluable. Clayoquot was not an ecological jewel as the claim, it was just marketed that way.

    I propose that land use issues should be decentralised and the local be given regional autonomy when it comes to resource development. If the slime balls of forest ethics, greenpeace, and WC squared want to create a war, go ahead but you are going to have to win over the local population, not Victoria and Vancouver.

    • BCCitizen

      Wilderness Committee happens to be the biggest LIARs in BC when it comes to their claims. The are certainly ANTI-science and ignorant of the facts in what they protest.

      They only go for emotional results and with their incessant lies, give no respect to the intelligence of the people (or their own cultish followers).

      Then they are collaborating with rabid nationalist rightwingers who want to nationalize BC industry and have everything run by the state.

      A pathetic and disgusting organization who were called "fake" by the First Nations.

  • delford t louis

    about time this happened to the scapegoats of government….calling their own shots that is…it is important the band becomes redesigned as a board of directors rather then the chief being the sole power which is a no no…under the indian act the chief can make all decisions without the vote or majority of his underlings…and to make sure every band member has a voting share of all monies! worst case scenario is the samson band lawsuit fiasco where the money designated for all band members is being divvied up to five supposed investors getting twenty grand a month to look after sixty million bucks of the band money and to one lawyer from montreal and …of course the former chief is also involved and is the ringleader who turned on his own people and claimed ignorance when the lawsuit was denied in the supreme court….when are people going to wake up? shame….inquiry? should happen immediately!…the losers are the membership while others laugh all the way to the bank

  • North Islander too

    North Islander:

    Yo dude – what cave did you just crawl out of ?

    • North Islander

      Cave, dont you mean forest? Thats where I work. Caves are for Geologist.

  • Smalltowner

    North Islander: All of the people of BC have a say in what happens to crown land no matter where it is. Just because the people in your community think it is okay to extract resources from crown land does not make it the right thing to do. Sure, you are more affected by the land use decisions in your area, but all of the people of the province have a say. You have chosen to work in a resource based industry which is running out of wood and popularity. Perhaps it is time for you to retrain and move on.
    And for all of you who seem to enjoy calling down the environmental groups, keep in mind that they exist to balance the extreme views of the corporations who are constantly screaming for more resources as they continue to close mills and lay off workers. A happy medium would be nice, but until we get there, the environmental groups are a necessity.
    Cheers.

  • North Islander

    “Exract Resources”? You make forestry sound like mining, or is that your intention? Forestry, well known by most people, is a renewable resource that continualy benifit future generations. When you state “not make it the right thing to do”, are you implying that it is wrong? Is it wrong for man to act as the mechanism for forest replacment instead of nature. Maby it is morally wrong for your political beliefs, but scientifically as long as site disturbance is minimised, its not much different than what nature does by itself.

    Forests arent immortal. They are living things that follow the same life cycles as every other living thing. Stating that we should protect the forest at its current state old and decaying state is simply a futile attempt. We see this with Stanley Park, a park which was highgraded in the 19th century and the remaining forest was protected for the public interest. That wind storm was inevitable. It acted as a mode to replace the overstory, allowing plants, insects, and other organisms to thrive in the open space that was held from them. This creates a new ecosystem. It allows for the residual standing trees to have increased pollen mixing and less selfing, increasing genetic diversity, decreasing genetic mutants of the new forest.

    You seem to view forest as buildings, that we should try and upkeep and maintain their current state and avoid man and nature to alter that state. Forest are ever changing, and man cannot stop that. Just you wait, Catherdral Grove with be next. A windstorm also has hit the park in the past, A huge fire guard was built to protect the forest from fire. That forest though is heavily diseased, with phellinus root rot killing the douglas fir. It will replaced by a new forest, and thus the cycle will begin all over again.

    You know how trees get to live that old? Increased genetic diversity. New alleles are created for increased insect, pathogen, and animal resistance. A deeper tap root for wind resistance. The trees that were cut down over the last 200 years allowed the parent residuals to cross breed easier. Old growth forests often are not great producers of new forest. The parents are often one parent or very close relatives, which creates genetic mutations.

    I hope this simple science lesson helps.

    • Guest

      Nice Work North Islander! Well spoken.

  • North Islander

    Now time for an economic lesson.

    Do you think the forest industry is like the financial sector, the oil industry, or the green propaganda sector? Margins are very thin. In fact, Canada was the only country in the world that had a forest industry with a negative ROCE on investment.

    Do you think forest company managers are evil people who joy over killing babies and closing mills. Many of these companies have kept the mills running as long as possible. Business is not meant to be fair and equal. A company cant sacrifice the interest of the whole company to save a money losing operation. If that mill is inefficient or its fiber costs are too high, is become uncompetative relative to other mills, thus is more vulnerable to declining prices. Mills are closing all over the world right now. There is an over supply of forest products due to the sharp decline in the world economy.

  • North Islander

    For the pulp sector, new entrants in South America and Asia, with poor environmental records (e.g. cutting down native species and replacing them with foreign ones) have very low labour costs. It costs over 1 billion dollars to build a pulp mill. In the past 2 decades, very few pulp mills were built in North America. We simply are higher cost operations compared to South America and Asia, making us more vulnerable to price declines. Our pulp mills also rely very heavily on sawmill chips and cant afford to harvest or purchase pulp wood grase logs. This makes them vulnerable to sawmill closures. Some mills have retooled to produce niche products, but this approach is limited in scope.

    For lumber mills, look no farther than who has markets and a secure source of fiber. The US northwest, US southeast, and BC interior have the most modern mills in the world (not all mills, but you can see that the ones that are running are the most recently upgraded or brand new).

  • North Islander

    The BC coast lost its one of its main markets, the Hembal lumber. The 1997 Kobe earthquake proved that green hemlock lumber was not suitable as a safe building material. So the Japanese stopped ordering it in favor of European and Russian lumber. The coast, restricted by the softwood lumber import clause, couldnt replace the Japanese market.

    Hembal consists of about 55% of the tree species on the coast. If you dont have a steady market for your main species component, you move to other species, such as Cypress, Spruce, Cedar, and Douglas fir. Your harvest level continualy will decline because if you target 45% of the wood supply, and only cut that, we will slowly have to harvest less every decade to insure a sustainable timber supply.

  • North Islander too

    Hey Buddy – I was thinkin more “cave=stoned age”

    yer concept of “forestry” is definitely pre-historique !

    Second growth is worth S.F.A. azz u well know.

    tsk tsk tsk

    • North Islander

      Modern forestry practices (those practiced in Europe and U.S.) insure that is a sufficient supply of timber in the mature age class (20% in Scandanavia) so that a consistent harvest level is maintained for now into the future. In BC, we are undeveloped in terms of our forestry. Much of our timber is still in the mature age class. Their isnt a sufficent amount of second growth yet in many areas to harvest till 2020 – 2050. Until these trees grow to a size that is economical to harvest, you cant expect to stop harvesting the much older profile without having a catostrophic falldown effect in the current. Forestry involves longterm planning which can span 3 generations. Changing the the timber harvesting landbase by removing the mature age class is not proper longterm planning.

      You are not obviously aware that one the coast it takes 50 to 80 years to grow a tree. We do not have enough second growth right now, but we will in the future. It takes time. Until then we will have to harvest the over mature age classes.

  • North Islander too

    “Forests aren’t immortal. They are living things that follow the same life cycles as every other living thing. Stating that we should protect the forest at its current state old and decaying state is simply a futile attempt.”

    … dude you really are confused – no one is trying to stop time – wot we’re saying is THIS is ALL THAT’S LEFT of a forest ecotype that used to cover landscape as far as the eye could see AND WE DON’T WANT TO SEE IT WIPED OUT for short term BS economic terms like FORD F-150′s or a coke addiction OR DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES.

    The forest will take care of itself without yer “judicious WISE-USE”

    Check the medical FACTS for resource extraction communities at BC Health – all so that FAT CAT INDUSTRIALISTS can drive their Lexus’ and go to the f’olympix.

    Do the math

    • North Islander

      Its not going to be wiped out. The biogeoclimatic subzones and site series do not get "wiped out" Its obvious you have just looked at recently harvest areas and not areas that have new forest growing on them. Fires and wind so the same thing.

      It is not short term. Laws and regulations are in place to insure we have new forest for the next generation.

      As for people driving around in F-150s, are you saying you want them driving in chevy 1500s or dodges?

      Cant say much about drug addiction or family problems. Its everywhere. Rich or poor. Resource Sector and Service Sector. I have checked the BC health stats. Look at it this way. North Island for example (Campbell River – North) has a substantially large first nations (25%) population that lives in poverty. Why cant let them have control of some of the land to lift them out of poverty, to gain jobs, and thus, those BC Health stats would impove.

      The forest would take care of itself if we didnt put out every fire that starts in the province.

      This article has nothing to do with fat cats, its about local people having control of local resources to control their own futures.

  • North Islander too

    “You know how trees get to live that old? Increased genetic diversity. New alleles are created for increased insect, pathogen, and animal resistance. A deeper tap root for wind resistance. The trees that were cut down over the last 200 years allowed the parent residuals to cross breed easier. Old growth forests often are not great producers of new forest. The parents are often one parent or very close relatives, which creates genetic mutations.

    I hope this simple science lesson helps.”

    …. all knowing one

    perhaps you would be well advised to change yer name to something more befitting yer beneficence !

    now about genetic diversity …

    do you really feel qualified enough to decide ?

    don’t cha think ya might not be seeing the WHOLE picture ?

    wha-happens if the required alleles were clearcut last month ? DUH

    oh and as an economic guru yer … well … equally mixed up

    “Do you think the forest industry is like the financial sector, the oil industry, or the green propaganda sector? Margins are very thin.”

    margins are only thin because the waste is so high as over mechanization and mismanagement dominates the industry.

    I’d say they get a pretty sweet deal – essentially free raw materials (stumpage is a sad joke) and a captive under empowered workforce. Ya ya margins are real “thin” – that’s why most timber BARONS are FAT.

    • North Islander

      do you really feel qualified enough to decide ?

      Well, I am educated in forest genetics, so better than most. If you do not believe what a say, take a look into the studies contucted in BC. This one might help "Genetic evaluation of alternative silvicultural systems in coastal montane forests: western hemlock and amabilis fir".

      wha-happens if the required alleles were clearcut last month ?

  • North Islander

    Well, current forest managment practices use a number of different methods to insure a suffiecent seed source is available to regenerate the site that was previously harvested. For example, most of BC requires that newly harvested areas are not adajecent to recently harvested sites until the trees are at least 3 meters in height (called "green up"). So, draw yourself a grid with the 6 boxes. It takes at least 10 years on the coast for a tree to reach this height. so, colour in boxes but make sure they are not touching eachother, not even the corners. Wait 10 minutes to simulate 10 years or 20 because they trees might not grow as fast and then colour in the next 2 boxes. Wait another 10 and colour in the remainander. Trees can produce seed and pollen cones as young as 10 years.

  • North Islander

    Also, if there are any lakes and streams, tree buffers must be placed around them. These buffers can be as much as 50m to as little as 20m on each side of the streams and lakes. These trees are old growth usually so they too can provide a seed and pollen source.

    Also, if you havent heard, we plant trees in BC. 200 million a year. By law, they are required to have enough genetic diversity to insure the future generation is not vulnerable to disease or insect outbreak and so the species can adapt to future changes in climate. In fact, did you know that almost all conifer tree species, except for cedar have as much as 10 times the genetic diversity as humans? Pretty amazing eh?

  • local

    Over 75% of Vancouver Island's oldgrowth forests are already logged. It may be a forest to us, but it is animal habitat for some species which can only survive in an oldgrowth forest. 90% of the valley bottoms are logged. When we start to destroy all that is left of a forested island which has been growning since the end of the last ice age, and we've done it in less than 100 years – we're at the end of our life line. No wonder salmon are collapsing all around us. If we leave these decisions up to government or industry we will seal our demise. The valleys will be defended and the mine will be defeated.

    • northislander

      75%? Where did you pull that number from? I know for sure its not 75%. Much old growth will never be logged because it is outside the timber harvesting landbase (stream and lake buffers, old growth managment areas, along oceans, muckeg and bogs, conservancies, parks). If you states that 75% of Vancouver islands valley bottom forests have been logged I would then agree, but as stating 75% over the entire island is not true.

      Animal habitat? Well please name a species that is under threat and currently not managed for old growth habitat. Not all species of birds, mammals, amphibians, require special old growth protection. Many actually benifit from large openings created by logging, fire and wind. The ones that are vulnerable are managed for (typically red listed species)

      • local

        I am quoting from several sources but here is one which states that 75% of the productive oldgrowth has been logged:
        http://m.wildernesscommittee.org/press_release/tw…

        What needs to be made clear is that it is "productive oldgrowth", so that doesn't mean 400 year old dwarfed bog trees. BC gov counts these and thus the numbers are skewed.
        Also- it is 90% of the valley bottoms have been logged on Vancouver Island. Only 6 watersheds greater than 5000 hectares are still intact.

        • north islander

          WCWC is not a site you should source your information. They take facts and manipulate them to spread mis information. The are not a reliable source

          Also, just because an area was logged in the past dosnt mean the old growth features wont come back. Many valley bottoms, with their rivers and streams, will have old growth attributes in this century. Why do you need to protect 5000 hectares from man and mother nature. If you dont want man in a park, then let mother nature replace the uniform old growth structure. That is what happens naturally. Like I said, forests arent museums.

    • north islander

      When you harvest a forest, it is not destroyed, it comes back. Thats a fact. The forest is altered. If a building was blown up, it is destroyed. If a forest is logged, burned in a fire, or blown over by wind, it comes back.

      Salmon arent collapsing because of forest practices. Name one stream on the entire coast that has been destroyed and is not inhabitable for fish after logging. You wont be able to. As for salmon stocks, well there is a multible amount of reasons why they go through population fluctuations, ranging from natural pathogens to off shore over fishing.

      I would suggest picking up a non fiction book on forest managment and start reading and educating yourself based on the scientific facts.

  • JimD

    As a Forester, I would just like to point out that clearcuts make ecological sense in many forest types, but steep-sided valleys that are home to uneven-aged stands are not one of them. If you want to clearcut a stand of lodgepole pine, go ahead, but it has never been justifiable from a ecological standpoint in these coastal rain forests.

    • northislander

      I agree with you on the steep side hills (over 70%) and the high grading of certain species. That is not proper forestry, its more like mining. Especially since the rotation and AAC is not properly managed for those particular age classes and species profile. As for uneven aged stands, many were all once even aged stands.

  • wayne moores

    This just exposes another big lie. That being that Indians are the great protecters of "Mudder Erth". Soon as they got their hands on a chainsaw and a tree skidder they started tearing down the forests faster than the white man and anyone who objected was labeled a racist. No doubt I will be slandered as well for saying this but I have a thick skin and if by stating the truth offends anyone, or is not politically correct…tough. Suck it up buttercup.

  • Islander

    Well said. The myth of the Noble Savage is just that.

  • http://www.nygoldcashers.com/gold_parties.html gold party NY

    Billboard for a nature? I really don't get it.

From Macleans