Editor’s Note: This note was sent as both a response to Michael Major’s letter and a Letter to the Editor.

To the Editor:

I personally don’t think that the bigger forest companies need to be honoured for what they are achieving regarding forest stewardship. In most cases, they just play by the legislated rules.

Unless a company gets FSC-certified, they usually do not go many extra Stewardship miles since that usually diminishes their profit margin. And, of course, they are first of all about profit. How much else can you realistically expect from them?

There are many forestry professionals who do their best within the regulatory framework and within company comfort levels and there are those who are pushing the limits while risking their jobs. They should be thanked for that.

It is therefore mainly the responsibility of legislatures (and of professional associations) to ensure that forest stewardship is being practiced.

In BC, the question of how much timber supply to sacrifice for biodiversity has been answered. Under FRPA and related policies, you can be a steward until the impact on timber supply reaches six per cent. Then it’s over.

And unless limits for the (negative) impact on timber supply are given up by the BC government it’s largely just stewardship talk and public relations.

It’s a clear choice of timber and associated industries and current jobs over biodiversity, future generations’ options and other values. 

Regards,

Peter Jungwirth, FIT, M.Sc.Forestry
(Vienna), Certified Arborist
Courtenay, B.C.