BC Nature Magazine is full of useful information. The recent edition (Spring 2022) includes an article by Ben van Drimmelen, which is both shocking and educational. Ben was a Ministry of Environment biologist from Smithers who worked with us on the Delkatla Bird Sanctuary project in the late 1970’s before he entered law school.

“Apparently” writes Ben, “in BC the protection of non-timber resources such as wildlife and fish, their habitats, water and biological diversity is not allowed to reduce the amount of timber available to industry by more than 6%.”

So, if we want to protect fish and bird habitat (and the two go hand in hand),we can only do so provided it doesn’t “reduce the amount of timber available to industry by more than 6%.” If a tract of forest is necessary for the protection of the Northern Goshawk, which needs a large territory for its survival, it can only be set aside on the condition that it doesn’t reduce the available timber supply by more than 6%. The same goes for other forest dwellers including the Saw-whet Owl, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Hairy Woodpecker, Steller’s Jay and Pine Grosbeak, all of whom are designated ‘species at risk’ on Haida Gwaii and dependent upon forested lands for their survival.

So how about the tiny Marbled Murrelets, those ocean-going birds which nest in the old-growth forest here? We have seen and heard them fly in from the ocean at three in the morning, circle overhead, call loudly and land in huge trees somewhere above us. Nope. There is no protection for them if it’s going to reduce the timber available by more than 6%.

The same goes for the majestic, slow-moving Great Blue Heron, possibly another island endemic. It, too, nests in the tip-top of large trees somewhere in the interior of the islands. We were introduced to one such nest some years ago by a local woodsman. I doubt if it’s there now; the area has been clearcut.

How on earth has the forest industry gotten away with this arbitrary 6% solution to their industrial forest needs since the early 1990s? Why have we been wasting our time trying to protect those non-timber values for the past 50 to 60 years? Even the Auditor General of BC flagged this “forest planning and practices regulation” a decade ago and found “no scientific rationale for this policy.” Yet it continues.

“Until it is removed or recalculated,” concludes Ben in his article, “it is very difficult for government agencies to meet the overall objective of managing our forests for future generations by ensuring that the public good comes before timber harvesting.”

If you feel strongly about this issue, you can contact MLA Jennifer Rice at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or MP Taylor Bachrach at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .