Timber (forest management)
I wish to refer to the fact that community forests may or may not include logging. Unfortunately, community forest agreements often emphasize timber extraction even though there is no such requirement. With community forests, it is entirely up to the communities affected to define how and for what the community forest is used. If the communities decide that the area is to be used for tourism promotion and recreation, for example, then it has the right to do so. Although community forests typically do entail logging, such logging can occur in any fashion desired by the affected communities. We feel strongly that the affected communities should define whether logging is to occur or not, and if it embraces logging, then the type of logging and the volume to be removed should be decided by the communities, not the BC government. In similar instances when the BC government has used community forest agreements as divide and conquer strategies, many First Nations and other communities have used Silva Forest Foundation to help develop community forest plans in which all logging that occurs in done in a way that facilitates and fosters First Nation culture and employment, and is done in a way (often through single tree or small group selection logging) in which a fully functioning forest ecosystem is left behind, even within the block.
Logging operations immediately adjacent to such large population centres as Maple Ridge, and within such high value recreation and visual zones, such as the Blue Mountain and Golden Ears area, should only be considered in exceptional circumstances. The visual and ecological scars, and limited land-use options that remain after such “urban-interface” logging occurs often reflects poorly on surrounding communities. The reputation of Maple Ridge could be dramatically affected by how it decides to proceed with land use planning at Blue Mountain. A thorough and unbiased land use planning process will certainly help maximize positive consequences to Maple Ridge and surrounding communities.
We were extremely disappointed that once again, logging is being advocated on Blue Mountain despite a near complete lack of evidence as to whether this activity is appropriate. Second growth logging on Blue Mountain is a short term and low value economic option. The economic benefits that could be generated from Blue Mountain, through a host on non-consumptive activities, dramatically outweigh the income the would derive from logging, as proposed, in these relatively low economic value second growth forests. If logging is to be considered after a full Blue Mountain management plan has been completed, we recommend a unique approach such as the doubling or tripling of rotation age and then single tree selective harvesting, followed up by First Nation controlled production and marketing of fine, value added wood products. Business as usual forest management on Blue Mountain is in nobody’s interest.
