Jump to content

Ralph Keller

Members
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To: District Manager Leslie Fettes, Campbell River Forest District Dogwood St. Campbell River BC February 5, 2023 Re: Younger Brothers Quadra Island Woodlot 2031 Woodlot Plan Renewal Dear Ms. Fettes, It has been brought to our attention that Younger Brothers’ Woodlot 2031 on Quadra Island is renewing its license and that it plans to “trade” a section of old forest previously committed to protection for a section of forest that appears to be much younger, and which may have been in part, previously logged. Further, the new proposed forest reserve appears to be located on a drier rockier mountain side with lower ecological values. This proposed new site is dominated by a drier impoverished forest, not a suitable replacement for the original reserve. Further, if the objective is to protect Manzanita, according to the BC Conservation Data Centre: “This species is reasonably common within its range and not very threatened.” One reason Manzanita isn’t very threatened is because it is typically found on very dry sites with poor timber quality and seldom logged. As a citizen of BC, I am offended by this and other forest companies who claim to protect biological diversity by placing reserves on dry, steep mountain slopes instead of preserving wetter low elevation sites with high ecological values. If satellite imagery is correct, much of the proposed site contains trees of low timber value. This trade appears to be more about profit than protecting biological diversity. According to Cop 15, there is a global biological diversity crisis here and around the world. If the government is serious about protecting biologically rich forests in BC, it needs to stop protecting steep mountain sides and focus on wetter, rich sites that are able to host a greater diversity of species. I’m sure you know there is a serious shortage of protected low elevation old forest sites along coastal BC. Finally, as owners of a Quadra Island wilderness lodge who have added millions of dollars in revenue to the local economy and employ 10 people full time seasonally, we are tired of being treated as voiceless bystanders while the forest industry runs roughshod over the landscape we depend on to survive. The original mandate for the BC Woodlot program was for small local licensees to work with surrounding communities to ensure local recreational, economic and ecological values were considered in forest management. I think many woodlot licensees have forgotten this. I believe it is your job to remind them of these obligations. Please disallow this misrepresented forest swap by the owners of Woodlot 2031. Sincerely, Ralph, Lannie & Albert Keller Discovery Islands Lodge & Coast Mountain Expeditions
  2. People from all over the world love to visit this archipelego of small islands, tidal rapids and deep fjords. Non-destructive uses of forested island landscapes likely have more economic value than logging. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT alternate economic uses of our old forests (as opposed to logging), the first thing that rolls off anybody’s tongue is tourism. This isn’t too surprising since accessible, complex low elevation temperate rainforests are extremely rare. With few exceptions, most of the low elevation rainforests we called “old growth” have long since been logged. Given the scarcity of old forests in BC, selling an old forest experience isn’t hard to do. Qualifying examples would be Cathedral Grove or Pacific Rim National Park. There are magnificent surf washed sandy beaches all over North America’s west coast but what sets the Pacific Rim apart from all the others is the magnificent old forest all along its shoreline. Some years ago, I had lunch with some of BC’s best known wilderness tour operators. The topic of conversation was the value of an old forest to tourism. It didn’t take long for everyone to agree that if only one of the Discovery Islands—say Read Island—had been left unlogged, its value in terms of tourism would be difficult to calculate, but everyone concurred it would be in the tens of millions of dollars per year. Imagine a 35-square-kilometre island with Cathedral-Grove-quality forests, but surrounded by BC’s highest mountains, indented with dozens of bays, dotted with B&B’s, resorts, restaurants, hiking and biking trails, and kayaking. In other words, a Tofino surrounded by calm seas, frequented by orcas, Humpback whales, all five species of salmon and a variety of cetaceans. A short boat ride to nearby Bute Inlet would allow visitors a chance to see grizzlies guided by Indigneous people. Why wouldn’t this be a world famous destination? This same land mass managed for maximized tree growth with virtually no regard for any other values save fibre production could, at best, sustainably produce $3-5 million in revenue per year. Its enduring legacy would be sterile plantations, negligible biodiversity, compromised water quality, and a net global carbon emissions producer. It requires perpetual annual subsidies, both monetary and in terms of lost natural capital. (Above) A wilderness tourism client paddles along the shore of Bute Inlet... ...after passing by logging on Stewart Island. Such circumstances limit the potential for development of other non-destructive uses of the forest in BC, such as adventure tourism. Successive BC governments have consistently missed the opportunity to harness the incredible economic power old growth forests offer, choosing instead to manage for the short term economic benefits of clearcut logging. Of course, an old forest has many values other than tourism. It would be right to say that the most important values of an old forest significantly outweigh those economic values our politicians love to endear themselves to. Consider the incredible carbon storage and sequestration of such a forest and the value of an undisturbed old forest as a study area for higher education and research. Then there is the wealth of biological diversity such forests harbour. However, all of the aforesaid begs a better question: Just because it is there, does humanity have the right to use it up? Generally, we seem to think so. With trees and forests, it’s easy: we’ve been using them up for centuries. Sometimes they re-grow, sometimes they don’t. When they don’t we give up and raise sheep or goats. And increasingly, we’re using up our fresh water supplies. We do much the same with our oceans: we use them up and hope the next generation will find another way to make a living. But let’s extrapolate the concept of using up nature’s abundance a step further. What if it became highly profitable to, for example, extract oxygen out of the air to make money? And what if it started to impact the percentage of oxygen available for mammals (read humankind)? We use up fresh water, we use up our oceans, we use up our forests, why not oxygen out of the air? Any scientist could argue successfully that human life is as dependent on all of the aforesaid natural resources as it is to oxygen. Perhaps it’s time that we started looking at forests in the same way we look at the air we breathe, or the water we drink. Just because it’s there, doesn’t mean we have the right to use it up. Why is it OK to obliterate the natural beauty of a forest and all the attending natural functions it performs for a few industrial jobs? Who says it’s OK? Ralph Keller has operated Coast Mountain Expeditions in the Discovery Islands since 1988. See the project’s survey of forest-based recreation resources on the Discovery Islands
  3. The potential for non-destructive—but commercially viable—uses of forests are undermined by the scale of logging in BC. (Above) A wilderness tourism client paddles up the shore of BC’s Bute Inlet... ...after passing by logging on Stewart Island. Such circumstances limit the potential for development of other non-destructive uses of the forest in BC, such as adventure tourism. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT alternate economic uses of our old forests (as opposed to logging), the first thing that rolls off anybody’s tongue is tourism. This isn’t too surprising since accessible, complex low elevation temperate rainforests are extremely rare. With few exceptions, most of the low elevation rainforests we called “Old Growth” have long since been logged. Given the scarcity of mature old forests in BC, selling an old forest experience isn’t hard to do. A qualifying example would be Cathedral Grove or Pacific Rim National Park. There are magnificent surf washed sandy beaches all over North America’s west coast but what sets the Pacific Rim apart from all the others is the magnificent old forest all along its shoreline. Some years ago, I had lunch with some of BC’s best known wilderness tour operators. The topic of conversation was the value of a mature old forest to tourism. It didn’t take long for everyone to agree, that if only one of the Discovery Islands, say Read Island had been left unlogged, its value in terms of tourism would be difficult to calculate but everyone agreed it would be in the tens of millions of dollars per year. Imagine a 35-square-kilometre island with Cathedral Grove quality forests but surrounded by BC’s highest mountains, indented with dozens of bays, dotted with B&B’s, resorts, restaurants, hiking and biking trails, and kayaking. In other words, a Tofino surrounded by calm seas, frequented by Orcas, Humpback whales, all five species of salmon and a variety of Cetaceans. A short boat ride to nearby Bute Inlet would allow visitors a chance to see grizzlies guided by First Nations people. Why wouldn’t this be a world famous destination? This same land mass managed for maximized tree growth with virtually no regard for any other values save fibre production could, at best sustainably produce 3-5 million in revenue per year. Its enduring legacy would be sterile plantations, negligible biodiversity, compromised water quality, and a net global carbon producer. Successive BC governments have consistently missed the opportunity to harness the incredible economic power old growth forests offer choosing instead, to manage for the short term economic benefits clearcut logging. Of course, an old forest has many values other than tourism. It would be right to say that the most important values of an old forest significantly outweigh those economic values our politicians love to endear themselves to. Consider the incredible carbon storage and sequestration of such a forest and the value of an undisturbed old forest as a study area for higher education and research. Then there is the wealth of biological diversity such forests harbour. However, all of the aforesaid begs a better question: Just because it is there, does humanity have the right to use it up? Generally, we seem to think so. With trees and forests, it’s easy: we’ve been using them up for centuries. Sometimes they re-grow, sometimes they don’t. When they don’t we give up and raise sheep or goats. And increasingly, we’re using up our fresh water supplies. We do much the same with our oceans: we use them up and hope the next generation will find another way to make a living. But let’s extrapolate the concept of using up nature’s abundance a step further. What if it became highly profitable to for example, extract oxygen out of the air to make money? And what if it started to impact the percentage of oxygen available for mammals (read human kind)? We use up fresh water, we use up our oceans, we use up our forests, why not oxygen out of the air? Any scientist could argue successfully that human life is as dependent on all of the aforesaid natural resources as it is to oxygen. Perhaps it’s time that we started looking at forests in the same way we look at the air we breathe, or the water we drink. Just because it’s there, doesn’t mean we have the right to use it up. Why is it OK to obliterate a forest and all the attending natural functions it performs for a few jobs? Who says it’s OK? Ralph and Lannie Keller have operated Coast Mountain Expeditions in the Discovery Islands since 1988.
×
×
  • Create New...