Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

We need to rethink how forests are managed

Re: “Forest trusts would preserve the public interest,” April 4. Andrew Mitchell provides an excellent alternative to the B.C. government’s area-based logging plan, but “local forest trust” might be too vague.

Re: “Forest trusts would preserve the public interest,” April 4.

Andrew Mitchell provides an excellent alternative to the B.C. government’s area-based logging plan, but “local forest trust” might be too vague.

Perhaps, instead, look at how our forests should be managed. Imagine the government getting out of the forest business and handing trees over to B.C. residents. Say you and I each own 10,000 trees. How would we manage them?

Some people might liquidate them for quick cash. Others might band together to start companies to tap the long-term potential. That requires the first step: a sustainable logging plan.

Next, a sawmill would ensure access to cheap lumber, thus cheaper homes. Also, selling lumber instead of logs means more employment.

Next step: maximize use of resources.

Last, we’d want to add value: using profits to offer training to turn our trees into fine products. Eventually, forestry could be a small part of what we’re doing with our wood. If we’re smart.

I believe this is what Mitchell means when he writes of local forest trusts as “devolved, democratic, free-enterprise forest management institutions.” It could get the desired result. If we’re smart.

The worst idea is to say to a company, “Log it how you want and pay us a couple of bucks in stumpage fees.” That would be idiocy. And yet that’s what we’re doing.

The trees belong to us already. A local forest trust sounds like an ideal template. Your choice: a clearcut field or a carefully managed future legacy.

John Kimantas

Nanaimo