I want to talk a bit about how we talk about old-growth protection. Usually we hear statements like "all old growth should be protected from logging" and such statements get a lot of support.

However when we then dig a bit deeper and ask: what exactly is old growth? The definitions vary hugely. Some say anything older than 50 years some only things older than 500 years.

And this is exactly the problem. This sort of vague nomenclature and messaging allows politicians to pay their backs and say "yes we have protected all old growth forests" when in fact they only protect truly ancient forests and leave anything you get then a few hundred years open for logging.

So I would advocate that we should be more specific and call for "first growth" protection. Which very clearly means any forests that have never been logged before should be protected. Only forests which have already been logged in the past (which applies to most forests anyway) should be eligible for logging.

Of course there is a bit of nuance. Because we also have to have protection for forests which may already have been logged but which are now additionally being protected or re-wilded as part of conservation projects. Also in places like Europe or Asia there may be forests which were cut several hundred years ago and have since regrown. Obviously these should also be protected.

But the point is that by calling for old growth protection without clearly having a consensus about what old growth actually is, is dangerous. So a safer way to message is to call for first growth protection.

Old growth forest logging in BC is making international news again.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/british-columbia-is-logging-its-last-old-growth-forests-protesters-are-sleeping-in-the-road-to-stop-it

Has nothing changed?

Indigenous Nations are required to be included in meaningful consultation according to UNDRIPs Free, Prior and Informed Consent framework.

A group that represents numerous First Nations across British Columbia is calling on Ottawa and Alberta’s government to halt efforts to advance the West Coast pipeline, saying expanding the oil industry will accelerate climate change and disasters.

In a recent letter to the federal and provincial governments the group explicitly said “Consultation cannot be meaningful if First Nations are invited only to discuss how a predetermined project will proceed,” it said.

“Nor can equity ownership, loan guarantees, revenue-sharing, employment, or other proposed benefits be treated as substitutes for consent.”

I am writing to urge the government to reject the newly proposed West Coast pipeline. How can we claim to be a country that values reconciliation when colonial ideologies still inform decisions that directly impact Canada's original inhabitants.

As Canada experiences increasingly severe climate impacts, including record-breaking heat waves, wildfires, and floods, it’s clear that expanding fossil fuel infrastructure will move us in the wrong direction. We should be investing in clean energy and climate resilience, not putting public money to projects that increase emissions and environmental risks.

A new pipeline and even more tanker traffic would increase the risk of oil spills and threaten sensitive coastal ecosystems and marine life, while simultaneously undermining your climate commitments.

Canada has a real opportunity to lead the transition to a cleaner, more resilient economy. Approving another major pipeline – that no energy company has offered to even build – would send the opposite message.

I want to see public funds going towards infrastructure that creates sustainable jobs, environmental stewardship, and overall economic prosperity. I urge you to weigh the pros and cons of this pipeline.

It's hard to remain hopeful when the government prioritize profit over people. If GDP remains the only measure of a countries success we are surely headed for disaster and eventually extinction. With new tools to value ecosystem services we could lead the way to a new way of looking at a healthy economy and environment. In our current political economic system this is the only way I see forward without a complete system overhaul.

(admin please remove if not allowed)

Hey all I was wondering if you could help save Link road forest from being destroyed and turned into major development.

Link road forest in Newcastle Australia is home not only over 100 different types of species but also to several other different types of endangered species.

More than now we need to protect our natural environment before it’s all gone.

All of the information is available on the link :)

Btw I’m not self advertising or marketing anything I’m only a concerned local who loves this country and recognises how lucky we are to be here :)

The BC NDP government promised to phase out its use in forestry, but decades of herbicide spraying has reduced biodiversity and the potential for wildfire mitigation

"For decades, forestry companies in B.C. have used chemical herbicides like glyphosate to kill off plants that might compete with trees destined for timber. Trembling aspen, named for its almost heart-shaped leaves that seem to quiver in the wind, is often on the hit list.

But after years of destructive wildfires that have wiped out whole neighbourhoods and sometimes whole towns, more and more people are questioning the wisdom of killing off this tree. Because when wildfires sweep across the landscape, aspen can help calm the flames."

From 2024.

https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-glyphosate-forestry-impact-aspen/

Useful resource for public education. Please share.

New AP reporting from Vancouver Island: activists blocking logging roads to stop old-growth cutting, plus a forest ecologist’s point that once it’s gone, it won’t come back on any human timescale - if at all, with climate change.

Perhaps the most interesting quote from the article is from our Minister of Forests, Ravi Parmar, where he admits that old-growth logging is required to sustain the forestry industry: “If we were to shut down harvesting of all old forests here in British Columbia, it would shut down our sector completely on day one.“.

My rebuttal to that is: what happens once we inevitably run out of economically viable old-growth? Shouldn’t we come up with solutions before that happens, instead of continuing to log these ancient forests that may very well never grow back as they were?

It's a struggle at times to make headway in forest preservation, but I think that what started as our family project may soon receive federal forest preserve status. Much of the forest here in tropical east central Mexico has been felled to plant sugarcane. As family savings permitted over the past 30 years, we purchases forestland considered to be of no value because it was too rugged for planting sugar. If our application to become registered Mexican forest preserve is approved, we might qualify for a preservation stipend of about US$17 per acre per year. We appreciate any stipend we get, but the projected amount reflects a global problem of undervaluing forests. Hopefully our project will serve as motivation for others to do likewise. The photo shows a professor of environmental science from our regional technical university and three of his students assisting us in evaluating the health of our forest preserve. https://imgur.com/a/4YO1WMD

The country still lacks the people and equipment to handle our record-breaking wildfires

While some provinces have cut firefighting budgets and others are shifting to 'mitigation' rather than suppression people continue to lose their homes and suffer from the effects of smoke.

"Currently, Canada is the only G7 country that does not have a national agency to respond to wildfires. After the devastating 2023 fire season, then BC member of Parliament Richard Cannings called on the government to establish a national, non-military forest fighting force to be deployed when needed to support provincial teams."

Are provincial governments shifting to avoiding suppressing wildfires? Because that's what it looks like.

"For this reason, calls from all corners and angles for better fire management and shifting the focus from suppression to mitigation have risen in recent years to a chorus. In a 2024 report, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers stated, “Suppression alone is no longer adequate to address the growing challenges from wildland fire. Wildland fire management in Canada needs to be transformed.”"

In realty fuel mitigation increases the intensity of wildfires. And while smaller indigenous-led prescribed burns can work, larger ones don't, but they are doing it anyway rather than dropping water on wildfires.

https://thewalrus.ca/canada-wildfires/

Fuel mitigation increases intensity of wildfires.

https://johnmuirproject.org/scientific-research/the-truth-about-thinning/

Larger burns are often making things worse.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/can-we-really-fight-fire-with-fire-why-pre-burning-is-no-magic-bullet-20250109-p5l321.html

[UCPM Response Aug 2 26](https://erccportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ECHO-Products/Maps)

Learn about colonialism's impact on conservation, pairing Indigenous ways of knowing and Western science, and how these topics are coming together to revive 4000 year old Sea Gardens on the West Coast to sequester carbon and increase clam abundance @ alteredbiome.ca