Whistler to start logging... tell 'em what you think.

[khyber.pass]

Yep, you heard it right. Whistler to begin logging, in many spots that will make things suck. Here's what's going down, first good, then the bad:

1. Whistler/Squamish/Pemby + First Nations now have control over their forests. This means local politicos can at least try to make better decisions than those made in the past, when the entire area was cut to ground, and which took about 75 years to recover. Since the logging heydays, the entire Sea-to-Sky corridor is now nearly entirely tourism based or related to it, meaning that logging has very little economic value.

2. However, under the Community Forest tenure agreement our local governments have to log a certain amount per year -- "about 40 hectares of forest" [new info: 20,000 m3 per year. At an average of 500 m3/ha, that harvest volume equals around 40 ha]. That's a lot of trees. For that, they get a measly $30, 000 - $50,000. Yep, that's it, small change in this town or any town for that matter. This logging includes old growth in the fragile sub and high alpine because the second-growth won't be ready to log for a few more years. It includes logging of existing bike trails, ski touring areas, heli- and snowmobile terrain, and hiking terrain.

Where exactly will logging take place?

Well I went to an info session last week to find out. Pictures here.

a) Logging is currently slated to take place among established WORCA x-country mountain bike trails Comfortably Numb/Young Lust/Green Lake Loop above Green Lake; Trainwreck south of Function Junction; and Runaway Train and the Sea-to-Sky Trail in the Calcheak/Chek areas. Proposed logging cuts will disrupt and possibly destroy sections of these trails and call for their rerouting and rebuilding. Enduro events such as the BC Bike Race, Cheakamus Challenge, Comfortably Numb run etc. will be adversely affected by these logging operations.

b) Logging is slated to take place in the Callaghan Valley close to the established Nordic Centre trail network, and close to if not in the area of Khyber Pass on Whistler mountain above Cheakamus, where lots of us love to go ripping down in winter...

Obviously this leaves a lot of "huh? wtf?" questions which is what mostly everyone in the Sea-to-Sky and the media is saying (see below). This isn't bullshit hippy "I love trees" opposition (I like them in my fireplace too). This is "I love our local economy based on natural tourism" opposition that has us all wondering why we don't pause logging for a few years, slow down, and wait for more advantageous second growth. This is opposition that [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDoU5QSDdUA"]YouTube - 2010 Whistler opposition to oldgrowth logging TV News Story[/nomedia] (ski touring, heli-skiing, biking, snowmobiling, etc). Tourism Whistler has also expressed guarded concern over the adverse impact of logging.

Get the info below, but here's the quick of it:

SO, you are an avid outdoor maggot, you like Whistler, write in to our local papers and Mayor telling us how much you'd prefer it that the next time you visit Whistler, bike trails weren't closed/destroyed thanks to logging and that old growth remained in and around the areas you recreate in:

Write the Pique

Write the Question

Write the Mayor: whistlermayor [at] whistler.ca

Articles / info:

The real value of B.C.'s old-growth forests (Vancouver Sun) // great piece that discusses economic value of old growth for carbon offset sales

Logging the Sea-to-Sky: Cutting the Economy? // my own research into impact upon WORCA bike trails & local recreation tourism

Logging protesters’ demands ‘reasonable’: Zeidler - Whistler Question


Cheakamus Community Forest met by protest - Pique


Olympic host town of Whistler logging old growth trees

[Johnny Casino]

The areas they have slated in this photo don't look very big (blue and red dots). Am I missing something?

"Red dots represent 2010 cuts; blue dots 2011 cuts; yellow dots 2009."

[vanisle]

Welcome to the real world..I feel your pain but this province was built on logging and the economic engine relies on it.The dude in the video is astounded
they are going to "log for money",well thats generally why they log and the people that do are probably paid a hell of a lot more than his guides.

[forest]

You are right in questioning the numbers. The license is for 20,000 m3 per year. At an average of 500 m3/ha, that harvest volume equals around 40 ha.

To calculate the value of the logs, using the average log price for the last three months of 68.36$/m3 (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hva/ext...0/3m_Jul10.pdf) * 20,000 m3 per year = 1,367,200 $ / yr. Costs would come off of that.

I don't know what they are selling the logs for actually, but that should give some scale to it.

there is a lot of information about what the plan is and what community forests are all about here:

http://www.whistler.ca/index.php?Ite...tent&task=view


Some information from their FAQ document.
Q: Why does Whistler want to operate a community forest?
A: The RMOW has long recognized the primary importance of sound land management on the viewscapes and watersheds of the area to support the long-term economic, social and ecological viability of the resort community and to the regional economy. The community forest clearly recognizes that the natural beauty of the area is a strong draw for tourism and has those values at the top of mind when planning community forest operations.
The primary benefit of a community forest is that the RMOW and its partners will have management control of forest harvesting surrounding Whistler and not a private forestry company

The Cheakamus Community Forest successfully negotiated with the Ministry of Forests and Range to reduce the amount of timber to be cut in the area from 33 – 36,000 m3 to 20,000 m3. If the community forest did not exist, private companies would be harvesting up to that amount each year with extremely limited input from Whistler.

Q: Is old growth forest being logged?
A: Approximately 50 per cent of the Community Forest land is old growth forest, particularly in the upper elevations. To minimize the impacts of harvesting and place priority on community values, the community forest is developing an ecosystem-based management plan with EcoTrust Canada, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating a conservation economy, based on small-scale, sustainable harvesting that Richmond Plywood has committed to carrying out. The partners are particularly interested in small
2
group selection and shelterwood silviculture systems, and managing for visual quality, watersheds, recreation and cultural values.

As the tenure holder, the RMOW and its partners will set the standards for harvesting in line with their sustainability and cultural goals: an opportunity that does not exist for the RMOW outside of a community forest tenure. The actual harvesting will be done by local contractors in accordance with the ecosystem-based management plan and Forest Stewardship Plan guidelines.
Based on this foundation, a silviculture plan was developed that complements these goals. It employs small openings of 2 to 5 hectares using selective and shelterwood harvesting methods, meaning that trees will be left throughout each cut block site. Harvesting of some old growth trees will occur, but there will not be large clear cut openings as has been done in the past.

Q. How much land will be affected by harvesting 20,000 cubic metres?
A typical 40' utility pole contains about 0.7 m3. A logging truck carries about 40 m3. A rough estimate of the land harvested through the community forest Annual Allowable Cut of 20,000 m3 is 40 hectares at 500m3/hectare. The community forest landbase is approximately 30,000 hectares.

[Johnny Casino]

local governments have to log a certain amount per year -- about 20,000 - 30,000 Ha

A rough estimate of the land harvested through the community forest Annual Allowable Cut of 20,000 m3 is 40 hectares at 500m3/hectare. The community forest landbase is approximately 30,000 hectares.

Sounds like there may have been some confusion with cubic meters and hectares. BIG difference.

Welcome to the real world..I feel your pain but this province was built on logging and the economic engine relies on it.

[eldereldo]

It may be preferable to not log, from certain users point of view, but given that logging tenures already existed, I would think it is MUCH preferable that they be controlled by a local agency(s) who is interested in the impact that logging would have on the local tourism industry.

But like so many things (IE the latest mis-adds about the oil sands) the opponents and proponents always pick and publicise the facts that prove their point of view, while ignoring the ones that don't, relying on the fact that a lot of people who read their releases won't be bothered to actually look for all the facts.

[khyber.pass]

@forest -- THANK YOU for catching the ha/ cubic metres mix up. I've corrected above. The idea is certainly to get the numbers right.

The dollar figure of $20,000 - $30,000 is what has been circulated amongst RMOW staff & Council. No one has yet come out and said otherwise. I would gather this is final profit after being divided by Pemberton, Squamish, Whistler and Lil'Wat and Squamish First Nations.

@vanisle -- yes the Province was built on logging, as well as exploitation of First Nations land without treaty, but that is hardly an argument to continue such practices, especially in the Sea-to-Sky corridor where the primary economy is natural tourism, and not logging.

@JohnnyCasino -- the pic above is of a HUGE area, that's the Callaghan and Cheakamus you're looking at! Each of those dots are located precisely in areas where WORCA trails exist. For example, here's the logging detail of the Trainwreck area:



And YES, Community Forests are a step in the right direction, even as they are part of a broader agenda to deregulate provincial forest stewardship.

So the next question is precisely how RMOW and partners can step up and think ahead in terms of forestry practice, and take control of the reigns, rather than blindly following the Province's dictum from logging corporations to log come hell-or-high water. We're beyond that now ...

So the point is to start raising awareness about how immediate logging practices will impact local recreation and tourism, so that the management of Community Forests becomes a municipal/local political issue, in which forestry use is decided through local consultation, rather than forestry maximums. The point is to create a model CF so that other areas which do not have Community Forests can fight for them...

[khyber.pass]

FYI here is a response from WORCA Trails Director Jerome David on the issue. If you want to contact WORCA, you can do so at:

http://www.worca.com/?page_id=446

Frankly I am a little surprised that WORCA has not circulated this information to its membership. Either their hands are tied, or they don't want to jeopardize official provincial trail recognition...

==

We are fully aware of this and all the issues around it. I received the maps back in June and met with Tom and some other party's in July.
It was agreed to on a 50 ft buffer along all trails where possible.
Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do legally, these guys have had the licence for that zone before we made the trails what they are now.
We are working on getting these trail to be officially recognized with the province, but at this point we are happy that we have been able to have open
communicate with Tom and have him respect the trails to certain degree. His licence does not force him to even acknowledge those trails.

Processes have begun to have Trails recognized at a provincial level.

Thank you Jerome
WORCA Trail Director

[hop]

You are right in questioning the numbers. The license is for 20,000 m3 per year. At an average of 500 m3/ha, that harvest volume equals around 40 ha.

To calculate the value of the logs, using the average log price for the last three months of 68.36$/m3 (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hva/ext...0/3m_Jul10.pdf) * 20,000 m3 per year = 1,367,200 $ / yr. Costs would come off of that.

I don't know what they are selling the logs for actually, but that should give some scale to it.

there is a lot of information about what the plan is and what community forests are all about here:

http://www.whistler.ca/index.php?Ite...tent&task=view

[I]
Some information from their FAQ document.
Q: Why does Whistler want to operate a community forest?
A: The RMOW has long recognized the primary importance of sound land management on the viewscapes and watersheds of the area to support the long-term economic, social and ecological viability of the resort community and to the regional economy. The community forest clearly recognizes that the natural beauty of the area is a strong draw for tourism and has those values at the top of mind when planning community forest operations.
The primary benefit of a community forest is that the RMOW and its partners will have management control of forest harvesting surrounding Whistler and not a private forestry company

The Cheakamus Community Forest successfully negotiated with the Ministry of Forests and Range to reduce the amount of timber to be cut in the area from 33 – 36,000 m3 to 20,000 m3. If the community forest did not exist, private companies would be harvesting up to that amount each year with extremely limited input from Whistler.

Q: Is old growth forest being logged?
A: Approximately 50 per cent of the Community Forest land is old growth forest, particularly in the upper elevations. To minimize the impacts of harvesting and place priority on community values, the community forest is developing an ecosystem-based management plan with EcoTrust Ca......................

This is where I stopped reading.

[khyber.pass]

@hop -- yes, also note that ECOTRUST is the partner. Well, who is Ecotrust? They negotiated the logging of Clayoquot Sound:

"Ecotrust Canada mapped the panel's recommendations and concluded that close to 11,000 hectares (27,000 acres) of forest could be open to conservation-based forestry in Clayoquot's forests, supporting many jobs as the local industry shifted to a carefully planned and value-adding enterprise."

That's in their own words. It's an interesting approach, but ultimately their goal is "conservation development" through logging, and not alternatives to it.

[Helldawg]

Logging! For money???

What is this world coming to???

I mean, doesn't everyone know that the only reason you should cut down trees is to make skis???

[khyber.pass]

^^ Or log selectively to get us some backcountry glades and access trails!

That's actually been suggested in letters to our local papers. AFAIK the CCF is in talks with a few recreation operators -- hopefully they are creative enough to get us something worthwhile out of the logging, for the cash it brings in is certainly not going to help anyone (@Helldawg -- they're not logging for money, but mainly because they are legally obligated to under the conditions of the tenure as it stands.).

[Pancakes]

Who Cares about BCs trees? There are so fucking many it sounds like a useful service to me.

[ill-advised strategy]

[farmer]

^^ Or log selectively to get us some backcountry glades and access trails!

That's actually been suggested in letters to our local papers. AFAIK the CCF is in talks with a few recreation operators -- hopefully they are creative enough to get us something worthwhile out of the logging, for the cash it brings in is certainly not going to help anyone (@Helldawg -- they're not logging for money, but mainly because they are legally obligated to under the conditions of the tenure as it stands.).

I don't know about the logging rules, but I am familiar with the rules for mineral claims in BC. basically, you have to do work on your claim or you lose it. This is (sort of) to prevent environmentalists from buying up all the claims and holding them forever.

Assuming that forestry rules are similar (might be, might not) then at least the group who is logging it is a community group.

And I like the glades and access trails ideas!


oh, and yetiman. I've had to try it. doesn't work!!!!

[khyber.pass]

Assuming that forestry rules are similar (might be, might not) then at least the group who is logging it is a community group.

You've hit it on the head. This matters big time -- tenure is now held by the Cheakamus Community Forest (CCF) which is made up of local gov'ts and First Nations up & down the Sea-to-Sky.

Which is also why it makes sense for operations to take place with some consideration as to the structure of local economies -- which are based on natural tourism & not logging.

For those not in BC, it might be tough to understand but there are huge areas set aside for industrial logging. So this isn't what is at stake.

The question in the Sea-to-Sky is how to negotiate the conditions of the CCF tenure so that logging can take place in a way which is advantageous to local communities rather than just following mandated quotas that don't make much sense for local economies.

It makes little sense to go to great lengths to log in an area where natural tourism is the primary economy, and to log where existing trails already exist, for that matter built by volunteer community mtb groups such as WORCA and partially funded by public funds.

Ie it makes little sense to destroy the economic base of a local community through logging. Several of the planned operations will affect local natural tourism, trails, recreation operator landbases, and yep, you'll see it from Hwy 99 as well as other locations. So the idea is to try and lessen the impact and plan well for the future.

As this is now a CCF tenure it does open up the possibility for more public involvement in the way in which logging is carried out (or not). This is all a very good thing compared to the private tenures of the past, when industrial logging corps couldn't give a damn about the local userbase or local economies. For those not in the know, this isn't private land, but public Crown land. Ultimately it belongs to the citizen, and control comes down to the Province...

[P!NK_polez_Boi]

Shut up Hippie

[P!NK_polez_Boi]

12345678

[forest]

In case anyone is really interested in the Cheakamus Community Forest and what is really going on, there is alot of information that is a little less one sided and a little more factual here;

http://www.whistler.ca/index.php?Ite...tent&task=view
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hth/community/

There is alot of not so correct stuff being spread around here. khyber.pass its great that you are concerned about the environment but when you lay it on that thick I don't think it helps anyone.

[LeeLau]

I speculate the reason Jerome and WORCA isn't making a big deal of it is because he doesn't think its a big deal but I'll go ask him myself. I've ridden trails with 50 m (even 50ft buffers to cutblocks and it just ain't a big deal.

Plus a lot of the trails that were punched in were in forestry tenure. You get nowhere as a rec user by trying to stop logging in an area just because you have a trail there. I see Jerome/Worca acknowledges that.

[Johnny Casino]

Perspective Check.

They plan to cut 40 hectares per year.

Whistler Village is 250 hectares not including Alpine Meadows and Creekside.

Sooooo, in 6 years they'll cut the equivalent of what was mowed down to build condos, hotels, shopping malls and parking lots.

Just think how many trees were slayed to build all those ski runs. The horror!

[farmer]

I speculate the reason Jerome and WORCA isn't making a big deal of it is because he doesn't think its a big deal but I'll go ask him myself. I've ridden trails with 50 m (even 50ft buffers to cutblocks and it just ain't a big deal.

Plus a lot of the trails that were punched in were in forestry tenure. You get nowhere as a rec user by trying to stop logging in an area just because you have a trail there. I see Jerome/Worca acknowledges that.

woodlot is a prime example of this.

[benk]

Will those "300 year Old-Growth" trees really be cut? Do you think trees of that size (and growth) will actually be bought? Most mills can't cut over a 36" tree anymore and it just isn't economical and environmentally responsible for landowners to remove those trees.

Let them work on becoming responsible forest stewards. Shutting them down will only lessen the economic viability of the community. Having a diverse economic, social, and environmental backbone will create a strong community. Have some faith, the days of cutting those old, wolfy trees are over. Mills don't want them, neighbors don't want to see them cut, and birds and other fuzzy wildlife love them.

[khyber.pass]

@benk -- Yes, in response to yr question, the quotas we saw presented show a percentage for high alpine old growth. The exact quota has changed depending on who you talk to. As for "having faith," I'll keep my cynic hat on and leave that for the innocent and naive.

A little story. House being renovated across the street from me this summer. One night, 10pm, a crew is out high-topping all trees on the property. At 10 at night? I went out and asked them what was going on. They stopped. But within a few days, every tree on the property was cleared. This seemed odd. Well, a few days later, a red stop work notice appears on the door. No permits. And thanks to that, there is no longer a tree buffer between this house and Hwy 99 -- which is required in Whistler.

Point being, faith doesn't do shit.


@forest -- heh, I appreciate your input as always, but to argue that RMOW's perspective isn't biased is the kettle calling the pot black. RMOW's statement as cited above leaves many gaping holes and questions concerning the process and details of the CCF. There is a general lack of faith in Whistler Council at the moment (*cough* Asphalt Plant *cough*).

@Lee -- I agree, I think this is the perspective of some members of WORCA's board, that the cuts won't matter much in the long run. However after conversations now with most of WORCA's BOD I wouldn't say that everyone agrees. There is concern. My guess is that WORCA is keeping their head down because they don't want to jeopardize the provincial application process they are undertaking to legalize their trails, as well as attaining a permanent seat on the Forest and Wildland Committee. This all makes sense to me. There are many prongs to a fork.

[lynchdogger]

Will those "300 year Old-Growth" trees really be cut? Do you think trees of that size (and growth) will actually be bought? Most mills can't cut over a 36" tree anymore and it just isn't economical and environmentally responsible for landowners to remove those trees.
Have some faith, the days of cutting those old, wolfy trees are over. Mills don't want them, neighbors don't want to see them cut, and birds and other fuzzy wildlife love them.

Being against old growth cutting may be a different discussion (one that I personally agree with) but I find this statement hard to believe. I've been in the urban tree industry for 15+ years and the logs I took to mill that were over 36" were certainly not rejected! But now I'm out of the industry so don't hate me for being a former tree killer!

This is not in my backyard so I'll go back to lurking here. See ya.