Dear Daybreak South (CBC Radio) team,
I listened with interest to this morning’s interview (January 27, 2026) that Chris Walker did with Council of Forest Industries CEO, Kim Haakstad. I take exception with many of the remarks she made. Here are a few of my criticisms.
Haakstad said that ‘3 trees planted for every one harvested.’ Planted trees do not make a forest. Only natural regenerations do, and only if the soil is relatively undisturbed and there is not so much clear-cutting that there are neighbouring trees and other plants to re-seed. Tree planting should only be a last resort in severely over-cut areas, and unfortunately, that is now the majority of BC forests. Cutting and tree planting are not sustainable practices.
She also said that ‘Cutting is done on 1st, 2nd and 3rd growth.’ First of all, Haakstad is admitting that old growth is still being cut. Also, according to researchers like Dr. Younes Alila at UBC, as well as Min of Forests recommendations from the 1990s, no more than 20-30% of an area can be clearcut over a 60-80 year period to maintain hydrological integrity. If you have a look at Google Earth Time Lapse for any part of BC, you can see that almost nowhere in the province have these limits been respected. This is why, even without climate change, BC is at a heightened risk for floods, droughts and fires. Haakstad talks about 3rd growth cutting. It is impossible to cut a third time and respect those limits.
Haakstad mentioned using forestry to limit wildfires. The opposite is true. Clear cuts increase susceptibility to wildfires for the first 40 years or so after cutting. Additionally, researchers in western US and Australia have found that prescribed burns or thinning to reduce fire risk is only effective within a kilometer of sites that you want to protect. Even then, it is only effective if it is done every few years. Healthy forests, especially older healthy forests, are our best protection against wild fires.
Lastly, the Council of Forest Industries is advocating for more cutting in burned or insect-damaged forests. Again, research does not support this. These areas will recover far faster if they are left alone, and in their damaged condition they are very important for wildlife.
The main problem in BC forests is too much cutting for too many years and too little high quality timber left. That is why the harvest is shrinking year over year and, in fact, is much less than the supposed Annual Allowable Cut. What is needed now are some major changes in how forests are monitored and trees allocated, with a lot less cutting, and no cutting in primary forests (never before logged), whether old growth, or fire or insect-damaged forests. More jobs can be created with less timber if there is more emphasis on local use of the logs and more local control, instead of multinationals controlling much of our forests. But what is allocated for cutting must make ecological sense. This is what several non-profit groups in BC are calling for, including the Interior Watershed Task Force (Okanagan), Conservation North (Prince George), the Boundary Forest Watershed Stewardship Society (Grand Forks), among many others.
Regards,
Eli Pivnick, PhD (Vernon, BC)
Eli Pivnick is a retired ecologist and teacher-turned-independent journalist who closely follows the BC forest industry. With a colleague, Janet Parkins, Pivnick currently has a biweekly column in Castanet called Inside Climate.
Leave a Reply