British Columbia's lands are owned by everyone and no one. Their chief steward is the provincial government. Once upon a time, there was a Forest Service and it released an an annual report to the public stating the condition of the land and the kinds of activities were being undertaken.
There is now not a forest service or an annual report. The government has reduced its forestry interface with the public by closing offices and reducing personnel, delegating its duties to professionals either working for industry or as their consultants. Public trust eroded faster than surface soil from a clearcut.
Meanwhile, when I was with the Canadian Forest Service, I co-authoured a research paper on improving the public trust in forestry in this province. It was approved for publication but the political powers of the day withheld its release while it was squelching the truth about the weaknesses in its cutting, pricing, tenure and oversight policies. Indeed, though professional reliance, the government apparently delegated its responsibilities to those who were reaping economic rewards while creating an environmental mess.
A few years ago, ex-forest minister Bob Williams published a paper called "Restoring Forestry in BC". It should be read by those of us that are concerned about government putting the interests of capital ahead of those of the people and the land.
Hi Bill, thank you for your comment. Let me test my understanding of what you are saying: when the management of public land is delegated to people working for private companies, the results are sub-optimal. (Have I got the gist?)
So here's a "devil's advocate" question: does the private management of private land also result in sub-optimal results?
Well…in more than forty years the single most effective tool for increasing public confidence in forestry were local based land use plans. Using consensus at a local level made forest and land management responsive to local values. Once industry was able to shift practices to better address local needs, confidence in the sector was improved. It was massively shortsighted to end land use planning and essentially cease local, meaningful public involvement, in the early 2000’s
Thanks for your comment, Kevin. To paraphrase my understanding, public confidence in the forestry sector is necessarily for effective management, and in order for this to happen, local input is needed in forest planning.
Alice,
British Columbia's lands are owned by everyone and no one. Their chief steward is the provincial government. Once upon a time, there was a Forest Service and it released an an annual report to the public stating the condition of the land and the kinds of activities were being undertaken.
There is now not a forest service or an annual report. The government has reduced its forestry interface with the public by closing offices and reducing personnel, delegating its duties to professionals either working for industry or as their consultants. Public trust eroded faster than surface soil from a clearcut.
Meanwhile, when I was with the Canadian Forest Service, I co-authoured a research paper on improving the public trust in forestry in this province. It was approved for publication but the political powers of the day withheld its release while it was squelching the truth about the weaknesses in its cutting, pricing, tenure and oversight policies. Indeed, though professional reliance, the government apparently delegated its responsibilities to those who were reaping economic rewards while creating an environmental mess.
A few years ago, ex-forest minister Bob Williams published a paper called "Restoring Forestry in BC". It should be read by those of us that are concerned about government putting the interests of capital ahead of those of the people and the land.
Hi Bill, thank you for your comment. Let me test my understanding of what you are saying: when the management of public land is delegated to people working for private companies, the results are sub-optimal. (Have I got the gist?)
So here's a "devil's advocate" question: does the private management of private land also result in sub-optimal results?
Well…in more than forty years the single most effective tool for increasing public confidence in forestry were local based land use plans. Using consensus at a local level made forest and land management responsive to local values. Once industry was able to shift practices to better address local needs, confidence in the sector was improved. It was massively shortsighted to end land use planning and essentially cease local, meaningful public involvement, in the early 2000’s
Thanks for your comment, Kevin. To paraphrase my understanding, public confidence in the forestry sector is necessarily for effective management, and in order for this to happen, local input is needed in forest planning.