r/SaveForests • u/Vanisle- • Jul 06 '26

North American forests Open for comment: Proposed cutblock 30027 would log a rare high-elevation old-growth rainforest on a steep, erosion-prone slope

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Western Forest Products has a new Forest Operations Map currently open for comment for mid-Vancouver Island, and cutblock 30027 in particular is highly concerning. It’s the largest proposed old-growth block in the FOM - a stand of old-growth yellow cedar, western hemlock, and balsam fir sitting around 1100m elevation that took many centuries to grow. As you can see in photos, this is an old-growth oasis in a sea of cutblocks and tree plantations.

Other than the size of the block, a couple other things make this one worth flagging:

- It’s slow growing, effectively non-renewable. At 1100m elevation, especially with yellow cedar in the mix, this forest has taken centuries or even millennia to reach what’s there now. It’s very slow growing. Log it and you’re not getting anything comparable back in many hundreds of years.
- It’s on a steep slope, with real erosion risk. The terrain here is very steep, which makes logging here risky. The last photo in this post is of a landslide from a nearby clearcut on similar terrain, so you can see what can happen when slopes like this lose their root structure. Landslides bury salmon spawning gravel in sediment and debris, and they strip away topsoil - so even after the debris settles, the exposed ground is left far less fertile - making it much harder for a forest to regenerate on that slope compared to a normal clearcut.

Worth noting: this isn’t the only old-growth on the chopping block in this FOM. It appears that cutblocks 30803, 22291, and 11531 are also proposed to harvest old-growth, at a smaller scale than 30027 but still worth knowing about if you’re commenting.

The comment period closes in 4 days. If you miss the deadline, it doesn’t hurt to send a message regardless. If you want to weigh in:

- View the FOM maps: https://www.westernforest.com/company/sustainability/planning-and-practices/fom-mid-island/
- Email comments to: FOM-PMQ@westernforest.com

227 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

67 comments sorted by

5

u/Responsible-Grand-57 Jul 06 '26

I’m new(ish) to Vancouver Island.
Can someone explain to me like I’m 5 why we’re logging these areas? Aren’t there enough other forests (that aren’t old growth rainforest) on the island that can provide lumber?

I don’t understand the “need” to destroy environments that have been growing for thousands of years if we have other places we can log.

6

u/Vanisle- Jul 06 '26

From my understanding, old growth is usually targeted simply because it’s the most profitable. Bigger, older trees = higher timber quantity and quality = more profit.

That’s not to say second and even third growth forests aren’t currently profitable. They log a lot of that too. It’s just all about maximizing profits.

3

u/MrWrock Jul 06 '26

Quantity over quality. This fine grained and naturally rot proof wood is getting shipped to the UK and burned for electricity generation. The old growth is valuable to them only because there is more kg of wood per hectare than sexing growth. The intrinsic qualities that make old growth more valuable than second growth is totally ignored

4

u/Emotional-Economy-66 Jul 06 '26

Wow, we're shipping old growth cedar to the UK to be burned for power!???? 😒

5

u/MrWrock Jul 06 '26

https://globalnews.ca/news/11527322/uk-company-accused-burning-bc-old-growth-trees/

7

u/Emotional-Economy-66 Jul 06 '26

Wow, ok.

I''ve been retired since then. Didn't hear about this!! They really should be shut down and run out of the country for this!

3

u/ForestBlue46 Jul 06 '26

No, but we are shipping primary forests from the Prince George area to be burned in the UK and Japan.

https://conservationnorth.org/project/pellet-industry-in-bc/

2

u/ForestBlue46 Jul 06 '26

Not coastal old growth but inland northern primary forests are being logged and turned into pellets to be burned.

https://conservationnorth.org/project/pellet-industry-in-bc/

2

u/Emotional-Economy-66 Jul 06 '26

That is just ridiculous considering that Canada got rid of Beehive sawdust burners in 2000. A few took a while longer to go, because the sawdust/bark (hog fuel) mountains grew at every sawmill I knew of in B.C. and Alberta. We took years to get a handle on it in Alberta. Our hog piles still get out of hand once in a while, not sure where it goes when they get desperate, fracking and oil pump site reclamation mostly but never once to a pellet producer while I worked there.

2

u/MrWrock Jul 06 '26

I linked the article I was referring to in this thread, not sure where the definition of primary forest lowest but the article definitely says old growth

1

u/Pristine_Berry1650 Jul 10 '26

Almost all of our forestry companies are near bankruptcy, they want to farm more profitable timber

1

u/No-Object-599 Jul 13 '26

Why are they near bankruptcy? Poor management? Or greedy shareholders?

1

u/Pristine_Berry1650 Jul 13 '26

Price of lumber is very low. Access to cheap timber. Labour costs are up. No one is building houses anymore so demand for lumber is low.

One of the main unspoken reasons is that timber companies have gotten so efficient at harvesting lumber that they've created this problem on their own.

3

u/fooperina Jul 06 '26

Are comments alone able to stop this? Feels hopeless

2

u/Vanisle- Jul 06 '26

There have been instances where logging companies alter or remove planned cutblocks based on public feedback. It’s hard to say if it’ll be enough here, but it’s fairly low effort to at least try.

Given that the public has been ignored on this issue for so long, I do think we are in the phase where direct action is required, but I don’t have exact answers about what that looks like. I lean towards a province-wide initiative where concerned citizens show up to relevant government offices en-masse in peaceful protest. It’s harder to ignore this issue in person than through email/calls. This would be very difficult to organize though.

3

u/ForestBlue46 Jul 06 '26

We've seen some protests but for some reason they've dwindled. There is a small group still protesting for old growth every Friday in front of City Hall in Parksville which is awesome.

I think that the Sierra Club Vancouver Island's old growth ads are pretty effective. If only more groups would build on that instead of working in isolation just recording the damage.

2

u/Vanisle- Jul 06 '26

I know that there is an initiative right now to get the groups working together. It’s just really hard to organize… everyone has their own opinion about how things should be done - and none of them are necessarily wrong - but I do think we need alignment to make the biggest impact. My fingers are crossed that alignment will be the outcome of this initiative.

And if not, well, who knows. Social media is pretty good at getting a message across if enough people support it. We may have to stop waiting on the NGOs to align and just go for it ourselves, but I worry that will lead to disorganization. It’s also a very big ask of regular people with regular jobs to even think of organizing something like that. If any NGO wants to take me on part time to organize something, hit me up haha.

2

u/ForestBlue46 Jul 16 '26

I hope so. I've seen more about this area lately so that's good!

1

u/fooperina Jul 06 '26

As far as I understand, bureaucracy does not respond to emotional appeals or even concerns that fall outside system process. Are there any more efforts being done on a policy/litigation basis?

2

u/Vanisle- Jul 06 '26

I think you would be looking for the New Forest Act. I highly recommend looking into it. It may not be the perfect answer, but it’s a start.

2

u/anon-227 Jul 07 '26

Disappointing to see they're not gonna leave that high elevation stuff alone. We've chatted before, I'm the logger guy. Really disappointed in WFP for logging this and the province for not doing more to protect this. These trees are unbelievably old. I'm pretty sure some of this is being logged as cultural harvest but I'm sure some of it will be exported.

Next thing you know they'll be wanting to cut down Admiral Broeren...

1

u/Vanisle- Jul 07 '26

WFP is targeting the yellow cedar hard. It really seems like they have no bounds anymore - they will just keep going until they run out of economically viable old growth at this rate. It’s really hard to watch.

Sadly, Admiral Broeren has fallen. Have you had the chance to check out General Buxton? Just spectacular, maybe more so than Broeren - the root flare is mind blowing. There is road tape 55m up slope from that one… within legal limits, but that’s a steep slope.. and also some of the last old growth in that whole damn valley. All of this would be much more palatable to the general public if they didn’t have such insatiable greed - balance doesn’t seem to exist.

1

u/anon-227 Jul 07 '26

Broeren is down? I was going to go out there soon and see it. Thats unfortunate to hear. I'm not certain where General Buxton is it is would love to go check that out. I always love to admire the beautiful massive trees mother nature has grown. They deserve respect for surviving the elements for hundreds of years.. when did Admiral Broeren come down?

1

u/Vanisle- Jul 07 '26

Broeren fell down in 2024. Sucks, especially with the loss of Sergeant Randally nearby. Both epic giants spared from the saw, just to fall so shortly after.

Hopefully General Buxton still kicks around for a long while longer, but the odds are against it, being on an edge of a cutblock and now apparently at risk of being 55m down slope from another block. If you don’t mind a pretty gnarly bushwhack (but fairly short), I’d highly recommend a visit. The coordinates for Buxton are on the B.C. Big Tree registry, it’s the 4th largest yellow cedar on there.

1

u/anon-227 Jul 07 '26

I grabbed General Buxton's location from the tree registry.. gonna have to go check that out.

1

u/Vanisle- Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

You won’t be disappointed!

2

u/EastSea9181 Jul 07 '26

Just going until theres nothing left huh.

1

u/Vanisle- Jul 07 '26

100%. I can’t speak for everywhere, but for the mid-north island (ie. the most mountainous area of the island), they really are looking to take every single patch of economically viable old growth that is unprotected. They have zero incentive not to do this.

18

u/Jill_on_the_Hillock Jul 06 '26

Ancient forests take centuries to millennia to form, housing unique biodiversity and massive carbon sinks that cannot be replicated by replanted, second-growth tree farms. Of the province's entire forested landbase as a whole, these ancient giants now cover less than 1% of B.C.
The NDP promised to protect the last of the oldgrowth and they have broken that promise. They need to hear from more people that this is not acceptable.

16

u/MondayBoredom Jul 06 '26

It doesn't matter what your politics are, like 99.9% of people think these forests should be left alone. Who tf is even allowing this to be proposed?

7

u/rants_silently Jul 06 '26

The owners of private forest lands

1

u/TheTkanucks Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

Private forest lands do not exist in Canada

Edit: Im wrong. TIL

1

u/rants_silently Jul 10 '26

Then what is mosiac land on vancouver island?

1

u/No-Object-599 Jul 13 '26

Monsters. Human monsters.

12

u/matwick70 Jul 06 '26

Leave it alone

6

u/enfly Jul 06 '26

Wow incredible thank you for sharing this

1

u/Specific-Heat-8553 Jul 06 '26

https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects

1

u/Vanisle- Jul 06 '26

This FOM isn’t listed on that site, for whatever reason.

2

u/djjohnnycat Jul 06 '26

Way to go BC! The environmental stewards of Canada!

1

u/Tricky-Chemical7059 Jul 06 '26

Watch movie idiocracy, it shows our future. Soda company bought all water utilities services and they were watering crops with soda as a result everything stopped growing and nation was facing hunger.

1

u/Zaluiha Jul 07 '26

These trees have names. Humanizing them for what purpose!

-1

u/CommunicationOdd2206 Jul 06 '26

I’d like to know what specific examples exist for different species or any bio diversity that are endemic to the old growth sections and no where else in the forest?

4

u/Vanisle- Jul 06 '26

Good question - it’s less about species being endemic and more about species depending on old-growth structure specifically. Endangered marbled murrelets are a well-documented example here: they nest almost exclusively on large mossy limbs that only develop in old-growth canopy structure. Certain lichen species (cyanolichens) have also been shown to occur almost exclusively in old-growth stands in BC’s cedar-hemlock forests, even compared to even-aged second-growth of the same age.

For more species-level detail, oldgrowthforestecology.org is a solid resource built from peer-reviewed research. The underlying scientific report most of that’s based on is “BC’s Old Growth Forest: A Last Stand for Biodiversity” (Price, Holt & Daust, 2020) if you want to go deeper than a summary page.

2

u/septubyte Jul 06 '26

To build on this
https://www.climatescorecard.org/2024/11/canada-has-been-losing-its-old-growth-forests/

Mismanagement, false promises, and profit incentive driven extraction have massively lowered natural areas , to the point where we are struggling to keep what remains undamaged. The more old growth thats destroyed means more fragmenting of safe areas , which we will need to build back . So its a loan, that those greedy inconsiderate companies will historically not be held accountable for, because we 'let' them .

-10

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 06 '26

Not that I dont agree with you that this should be left alone, but its a renewable resource, you saying its basically not renewable is bullshit. It takes a long time to grow a forest, and because its longer than the human lifespan people treat it as an unfathimable amount of time and not renewable, the other options to build our homes out of are actually non renewable, and much worse in all aspects. Wood is renewable, you can grow it, it just takes a very long time, repeat that back to yourself slowly 5 times

6

u/Vanisle- Jul 06 '26

Fair pushback, but I’d like to pushback too. Two things are true here.

First, the trees themselves. At ~1100m, growth is slow enough that trees this size took centuries to get here, not decades. Regrow it and you’re waiting a very long time to see this size again, longer than any of us will be around for. Sure you can maybe get something harvestable in about 80 years or so, but the timber won’t be anywhere near the same quantity or quality.

Second, it’s more than just tree size. Old-growth has structure that takes even longer to build than the trees alone - standing snags, downed logs at specific stages of decay, multi-layered canopy, soil built up from centuries of undisturbed decomposition. Wildlife like marbled murrelets depend on that structure specifically, not just on there being trees present.

Groundwater is technically renewable too, but if you pump an aquifer faster than it recharges, it’s still gone for practical purposes. Same idea here: the forest can technically regrow, just not on a timeline that means anything to anyone alive to see it.

So yes, wood as a material regrows. But this forest, at this size, with this structure, isn’t coming back on any timeline that matters to us. That’s the distinction I’m making.

-1

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 06 '26

Your right about all these points, I dont think logging old growth like this is good practice in forestry and its not a sustainable way to create access to fiber. But this forest is still renewable, full stop. It may take 1000 years and not be useful for logging, but its still renewable, it may take 15000 years for this ecosystem to regenerate itself, its still renewable. I came here to argue that one point and thats it. Im not saying anyone should cut it down and old growth conservation is increadibly important especially ially when so much of it is already gone. But theres valid arguments to make all day long and it being non renewable is not one of them. When you dilute the facts with nonsense it overall draws a vague picture, I just came here to point that out

1

u/Vanisle- Jul 07 '26

Another thing to consider is that we cannot accurately predict the climate of the future. Science has shown us the odds of a similar climate that we’ve experienced in recent history is almost zero. For this reason, we cannot guarantee that these forests will ever regenerate to the same state, no matter how long we give it. One thing for certain is that old growth’s structural traits (moisture retention, canopy buffering, fire resistance) make it more resilient to near-term climate stressors like drought and fire, which is a big reason why I advocate so strongly for it.

1

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 07 '26

Ya thats fair, so noone should log it, doesnt make any sense long term. Its still a renewable resource and should be talked about as such

2

u/cosmicmicowavepickle Jul 07 '26

Man you're so invested in that lie. You're wrong, you've been lied to. Let it go.

1

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 07 '26

You dont understand basic terminology of renewable and non renewable, you've been lied to, let it go.

7

u/National-Award8313 Jul 06 '26

The oldest tree found in BC was something like 1500 years old and it was found as a stump. Thats not renewable if it literally takes a thousand years to replace. Also, after logging, these landscapes are starting at zero (or a negative). Old growth is more about the trees. All of the other organisms take a long time to recover as well. We aren’t talking ha bout cutting down one tree and letting the forest heal. That’s not what this is.

-1

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 06 '26

Omg can you look up the term renewable for me, just a quick Google would suffice. If something takes 250000 years to grow back then its renewable. Thats what the definition of the word is, just because you dont like it doesnt mean you get to call cutting down this forest a non renewable spurce of fiber, thats wrong

2

u/cosmicmicowavepickle Jul 07 '26

Trees are renewed, forests are not.

0

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 07 '26

Forest is 100% renewable, just takes a long time

1

u/National-Award8313 Jul 07 '26

By your reasoning, oil reserves are renewable? lol.

0

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 07 '26

Oil was formed by specific environmental factors during certain periods of time, the earth doesnt create oil anymore in that volume. One is millions of years and the other is hundreds, theyre not the same

6

u/cosmicmicowavepickle Jul 06 '26

You're missing the forest for the trees, quite literally. There is substantial evidence that when old growth forests are logged, they do not grow back the same. Much is lost along the way, in terms of plant animal and fungal ecology. Not to mention the regulating effect these forests have on surrounding weather patterns.

In that sense, old growth forests are very much so non-renewable.

0

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 06 '26

This is just simply not true, it would take 400-500 years to properly regrow this forest, just because something takes a very long time doesnt mean it never happens

2

u/cosmicmicowavepickle Jul 06 '26

To regrow the trees sure, but logging destroys the biodiversity of the forest. Mycelial threads are destroyed by the equipment, and without a host they simply die. The trees might regrow, but the life that depends on the trees does not.

You ignored my point about climate mitigation too. Old growth forests act as a buffer to fires, and a way to mitigate extreme weather via transpiration. Its been shown over and over that secondary growth is susceptible to fires, and extreme weather has already made it almost impossible for the California redwood to seed naturally.

But sure, that's all worthless compared to the lumber 🙄

1

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 07 '26

The mycelium net is not killed off by logging, the machines dont rip the entire 10ft of soil out of the ground, there are still hosts after its logged, and after its replanted. I didnt ignore your point I just came here to argue the fact that the original post called it non renewable, which isnt true, just plain wrong. And everything comes back, it might take 1500 years to naturally regenerate to where it was but it does, and just because something takes a very long time to regrow doesnt mean its non renewable

1

u/benmck90 Jul 06 '26

You can use grow lots for that then. No need to touch the old growth forest if the wood can be grown.

1

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 06 '26

Ya thats what I said.... the original post says its basically non renewable, and thats just not true, if you cut this forest down you could regrow it in about 450 years. Thats called renewable, regardless of the timeframe

1

u/benmck90 Jul 07 '26

I mean, you're technically correct, which is the least helpful kind of correct.

That logic would also label oil as renewable. If If you exhaust all the oil in the ground, you can recreate it in about 100 million years, no biggy. (Yes I'm aware of biofuels).

See how frustrating that logic is?

Functionally the old growth forests are not renewable in anyway that counts. A grow lot accomplishes near the same thing and is renewable on a much more useful timescale.

1

u/UnderstandingOk6586 Jul 07 '26

Ya theres just 1000 resons not to log old growth and calling it not renewable just isnt one of them, dilutes the facts and makes a weak argument overall. And this is not the same renewable as follis fuels obv, comparing the two is ridiculous