Call for Reform: Questioning the Role of Chief Forester’s Office

Residents of Prince George are urged to scrutinize the recent report highlighting the influence of unelected officials in Victoria on logging decisions in the region. The report indicates that the Office of the Chief Forester, led by Shane Berg, is currently determining the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) for the Prince George Timber Supply Area over the next decade. This process, referred to as a Timber Supply Review (TSR), has been criticized for masquerading as a scientific initiative while allegedly being driven by political agendas.

Concerns have been heightened following revelations from a technical report commissioned by Mackenzie-area First Nations during the 2020 TSR. This report, prepared by consultants Dave Radies and Martin Watts, claims that the rate of harvesting is likely twice as high as it should be. The study aimed to incorporate First Nations’ perspectives into calculations of the purportedly sustainable AAC but has been criticized as a token gesture.

One significant issue raised by the report involves the Chief Forester’s refusal to consider requests from First Nations for a maximum of 20 percent deciduous composition in future plantations. Advocates argue that increasing the presence of species like aspen and birch would enhance local ecosystems, increase moose populations, and improve water quality. Yet, the Chief Forester did not adjust the AAC to accommodate these suggestions, raising questions about the transparency of the review process.

A prior investigation by James Steidle, a founder of Stop the Spray BC, revealed concerning practices within the Chief Forester’s office, including the alteration of a report on glyphosate spraying. Key sections that emphasized the role of aspen in wildfire mitigation and forest health were reportedly removed. This raises further doubts about the office’s commitment to sustainable forestry practices.

The current approach seems to prioritize timber supply over the health of diverse forest ecosystems. The Chief Forester’s analysis for Mackenzie suggests annual losses to forest fires between 310 and 533 hectares, but the average loss over the previous decade was significantly higher at 1,800 hectares. In a notable incident in 2023, approximately 94,000 hectares of timberland burned, including younger plantations, contradicting the office’s projections.

The debate is further complicated by insights from Liam Parfitt at Freya Logging, who advocates for shifting focus from old primary forests to thinning existing plantations. Parfitt’s surveys indicate that these plantations are growing at rates potentially double those predicted by the Chief Forester’s office. This suggests that more deciduous trees could be integrated into plantations without compromising supply.

Despite these findings, the Ministry of Forests appears to hinder plantation thinning efforts, likely because the Chief Forester’s AAC calculations rely on high-density plantations to project future yields. This lack of investigation into the impact of thinning on AAC raises concerns about the office’s methodology.

Ultimately, the underlying issue seems to be a political economy that prioritizes the interests of lower mainland offices and investors over the needs of northern communities and First Nations. Critics argue that the Chief Forester’s office operates with a level of independence and lack of accountability that undermines democratic processes.

James Steidle calls for an immediate investigation into the Timber Supply Review process, emphasizing the need for accountability regarding the models that influence herbicide spraying, fertilization, and forest management strategies. This inquiry is crucial for addressing the alleged politicization of forest management and ensuring sustainable practices that benefit both ecosystems and local communities.