Fascinating article. Great support made for the points, although there is one question I am left with - BC has had a TON of forest fires over the past decade, with several each year burning out of control. The prevailing narrative has often been that the degree of damage from these fires could be mitigated with better forestry maintenance like controlled burns and other measures. Which begs the question - Does this kind of logging or forest even match up with that style of mitigation? If so, that might be the only other argument I can see for the logging, although it would have to be lock and step in line with the mitigation plan.
Great argument, while there is a sustainable forest industry argument in general, there is not one that could persuade that removing an ecosystem that has been built over a millennia. The amount of "profit" for a single organization cannot justify this course.
Is there a typo in the article? It says that tourism generated $8.3M but the link has the figure of $20.5M in 2018 and $18.4M in 2017.
Otherwise, I agree with the analysis here. Though, as with the previous article, I'm skeptical of the claim about a tourism industry only needing a little push to get started. There are significant differences in accesibility and nearby population as compared to Redwood National Park.
To develop a tourism industry BC needs more capacity to house people. That's going to require changing the zoning laws, but it's also going to require... lumber.
Finally, a rational discussion from the environmental side. Controlled logging for profit and to protect other values is feasible in short lived forests like the Boreal where old growth natural forests are rare due to natural fire recurrence.
Thank you for this. The ugly, grotesque, evil economic reality of old growth forests, like most renewable 'natural' resources, is the best thing to do financially is clear cut them all as rapidly as possible and invest the money in a basket of exchange traded funds (ETF).
Historically, the stock market 'grows' far more rapidly than trees. And, trees alone, of course, never make a forest, let alone an old growth forest, anymore than wheat makes meadows or grasslands.
This economic horror equally applies to all 'renewable' animal 'resources' including fish, seals, whales, moose, etc. In terms of money to be acquired, stock markets 'grow' faster than eco-systems.
Fascinating article. Great support made for the points, although there is one question I am left with - BC has had a TON of forest fires over the past decade, with several each year burning out of control. The prevailing narrative has often been that the degree of damage from these fires could be mitigated with better forestry maintenance like controlled burns and other measures. Which begs the question - Does this kind of logging or forest even match up with that style of mitigation? If so, that might be the only other argument I can see for the logging, although it would have to be lock and step in line with the mitigation plan.
Great argument, while there is a sustainable forest industry argument in general, there is not one that could persuade that removing an ecosystem that has been built over a millennia. The amount of "profit" for a single organization cannot justify this course.
Is there a typo in the article? It says that tourism generated $8.3M but the link has the figure of $20.5M in 2018 and $18.4M in 2017.
Otherwise, I agree with the analysis here. Though, as with the previous article, I'm skeptical of the claim about a tourism industry only needing a little push to get started. There are significant differences in accesibility and nearby population as compared to Redwood National Park.
To develop a tourism industry BC needs more capacity to house people. That's going to require changing the zoning laws, but it's also going to require... lumber.
Finally, a rational discussion from the environmental side. Controlled logging for profit and to protect other values is feasible in short lived forests like the Boreal where old growth natural forests are rare due to natural fire recurrence.
Thank you for this. The ugly, grotesque, evil economic reality of old growth forests, like most renewable 'natural' resources, is the best thing to do financially is clear cut them all as rapidly as possible and invest the money in a basket of exchange traded funds (ETF).
Historically, the stock market 'grows' far more rapidly than trees. And, trees alone, of course, never make a forest, let alone an old growth forest, anymore than wheat makes meadows or grasslands.
This economic horror equally applies to all 'renewable' animal 'resources' including fish, seals, whales, moose, etc. In terms of money to be acquired, stock markets 'grow' faster than eco-systems.