May 8, 2024 • 40 mins
We return to our conversation with Rachel Plotkin from the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Julee Boan from Natural Resources Defense Council. This week we’re talking caribou and the economics of forestry.
Boreal caribou habitat overlaps with forest areas where harvesting takes place. Caribou are also a species-at-risk, in trouble across the country. Julee and Rachel break down two narratives that are simultaneously taking place. One behind closed doors that seems to understand the science and is amenable to protecting this indicator species. But then in the public arena, the narrative flips to paint caribou conservation as a threat to economic health. Are economic and environmental values inherently at odds? Or as Rachel says, is there “room for both”?
Check out more of Rachel and Julee's work by reading The State of the Forest in Canada: Seeing Through the Spin and the Room for Both reports.
Make sure to check out the show notes on the podcast webpage for more links and helpful resources.
You can help this community grow by sharing the podcast with your friends.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Janet Sumner (00:00):
Welcome to the Clear Cut.
Hi, I'm Janet Sumner, ExecutiveDirector at Wildlands League.
Kaya Adleman (00:08):
And I'm Kaya Adelman, Carbon Manager at
Wildlands League.
Janet Sumner (00:14):
Wildlands League is a Canadian conservation
organization working onprotecting the natural world.
Kaya Adleman (00:21):
The Clear Cut is bringing to you the much-needed
conversation on Canadian forestmanagement and how we can better
protect one of Canada's mostimportant ecosystems, as our
forests are reaching a tippingpoint.
Janet Sumner (00:41):
All right, it's our second episode with Julie
and Rachel as I said, two of thehardest working women in
conservation and we are going todive into more conversation
about caribou in this episodethe Alps.
(01:05):
So she'll be gone for a coupleof weeks, but we're going to
stay online with our episodes,so you don't need to worry about
that, and maybe when she getsback and we start to dive into
the next episode, we'll ask herhow her trip went.
But right now I want to startwith a little bit of a rant.
I want to talk about wildfiresand what's coming up and why
this is just really annoying me.
And so, for example, this lastweek, I've been seeing all kinds
(01:27):
of media on the fact that we'vealready started into wildfire
season, that wildfires areburning right now as we sit here
, and yet last summer, all I sawas a response was two or three
things.
One is, yes, we need morefirefighters OK, great.
But the other response was thisis being caused by climate
change yes, indeed, but theother response which I was
(01:50):
really surprised at or reallyconcerned about was we need to
log more faster.
And so just go with me on thisrant, as I was reading the media
again.
This week there's a new piecethat came out from Stéphane
LeBay, who is a reporter atGlacier Media, and he published
on.
He was at a meeting and he waslistening in to the logging
(02:12):
industry talking about how theircommunications need to be more,
about how they become a hero inthe narrative around wildfires
that they can get in and logfaster and log more.
But the interesting thing isthat all the experts who work on
fire are now saying that thisgrowing wildfire crisis is
actually partially to blame fromthe logging industry, that when
(02:35):
you're logging, or what we'vebeen doing for the last century
is we've been suppressing fire,so keep the forest from burning.
In a forest that actually verymuch naturally burns, keep it
from burning so that we can logthat timber, and that century of
fire suppression as a loggingpractice have left the forest
(02:59):
prime to burn.
And so, therefore, is thelogging industry the hero, or
are they one of the culprits incausing this in terms of climate
change, et cetera, and loggingpractices?
And then how do you square that?
What's the solution?
Is it just saying, oh yes, goin and log faster?
So we're going to unpack someof that in one of our episodes,
(03:23):
but for me, I'm alreadyterrified of this year's
wildfire season.
It's definitely a problem forpeople who live in communities
that are close to wildfirebreakout areas and also for the
creatures that live there, buton a planetary scale, it is of
concern because it's a hugecarbon cost, and then, in
(03:45):
addition to that, we had beenrelying on those forests to help
absorb the carbon, and so, bothfrom a climate and a nature
perspective and a humanperspective, wildfire season is
a terrifying prospect.
Kaya Adleman (04:00):
Yeah, and Jen Barron is a fire ecologist out
of BC who you're going to hearfrom in the next episode
actually, so she has a lot ofreally interesting things to say
, especially in a medialandscape where the conversation
around wildfires has been soclimate change and planetary
(04:21):
warming centric.
Janet Sumner (04:23):
Yeah, and it's got to be a little bit disconnected
, or seemingly so, for thegeneral public, who may or may
not be aware of Canada's Stateof the Forest Report, which
seems to say things are allgoing hunky-dory, or the, to
quote another YouTuber,okie-dokie.
You know that things are justgoing along swimmingly in terms
(04:45):
of how Canada is managing itsforests to see these big
outbreaks of wildfires and atthe same time, we know that
caribou ranges are crashing andthat's what we're going to talk
to Rachel and Julie about iscaribou ranges.
Rachel makes the quote that allcaribou ranges are in trouble
across the country except forthree provinces.
So we're going to get into alittle bit of why that's the
(05:06):
case with them, and we've talkedbefore with Justina Ray from
WCS and we've had conversationswith Anna Baggio, who's also in
our shop.
But we'll get into more of thecaribou conversation with Rachel
and Julie, who have worked onthose issues for a good long
time.
Kaya Adleman (05:24):
Yeah, and maybe to even bridge the gap between our
wildfire conversation and ourcaribou conversation, is that.
What I find particularlyinteresting in this episode is
the, the narratives that comefrom industry about these two
issues and how what they'repurporting publicly is is
(05:45):
benefits them directly, and howdo we apply.
You know, a critical thinkinglens to the messaging that we're
getting from the forestindustry and considering the
science that's out there as wellsay it's the big commercial.
Janet Sumner (06:06):
Uh, yeah, folks that are out there painting this
message.
It almost reminds me of when Iused to work on climate change
very directly with the oil andgas industry and how they were,
uh, selling us their performanceon climate change.
So this will be interesting toget into with uh, julie and
rachel on caribou, I wanted toswitch up a little bit and maybe
(06:28):
talk about, I don't know, thisspecies you might know a little
bit about called caribou.
Just, anybody has anything theymight want to say on caribou.
We've covered caribou.
We had Dr Justina Ray on fromWCS and we had a great
conversation with her and wetalked to Anna Baggio, who's
also worked on caribou forWildlands League, and I'm just,
(06:50):
I know right now I'm faced withtwo people who have a long
history of working on caribouand thinking about it, and
Rachel and I have a bit of ashared history of having done
some work on caribou in Albertaand we haven't yet, on the pod,
had a chance to talk aboutAlberta and Caribou.
But certainly Julie's alsoworked on Caribou and very
specifically in Ontario as well.
(07:11):
So either one of you want totake it away and talk about some
things about Caribou.
Rachel Plotkin (07:19):
As someone who's worked on Caribou for quite a
while now, it's a heartbreakingfile.
Like it's a file that feelslike the science is out there
that describes what caribou needto survive and recover, and
that's not the case for manyspecies.
For many species, we know thathabitat disturbance, habitat
(07:40):
degradation and fragmentationcan drive their decline, but
there hasn't been studies thatshow the relationship between
the levels of degradation andcalf survival like there have
been for caribou.
And when that was released itfelt like such a triumph.
It felt like we had thesignposts that we needed to
guide us in the decision-makingprocesses to actually manage
(08:01):
forests so that caribou couldsurvive and recover.
And that science came out in2008.
Like it's been around for solong and the federal government
did do a first good step inmandating provinces to develop
caribou range plans and lookingat the relationship between
(08:22):
disturbance and survival.
Looking at the relationshipbetween disturbance and survival
, they made a social decisionabout the probability of
persistence that they werepicking for caribou for
provinces to abide by and thatprobability of persistence was
60%.
So they're mandating provincesto develop caribou range plans
so that every caribou range hasa minimum of 65% undisturbed,
(08:46):
unfragmented habitat and, wherethat's been surpassed that it
should be restored, and againlike that's a 60% probability of
survival for caribou.
So what it did was it tippedthe trend away from declining
towards recovering, but like whowants a 60% chance that they're
going to survive, you know?
Like it's not very high.
And even then, like there'sjust been so much reticence from
(09:10):
provinces, especially theprovince where we live, Ontario,
and the forestry industry, tojust step up and take on the
responsibility of if we're goingto have caribou.
We need to change our practices.
We need to plan to ensure thatthese minimum unfragmented
(09:33):
habitat thresholds are upheld,and it's just been devastating
to watch year after year asbasically business as usual
practices have continued incaribou habitat.
Julee Boan (09:45):
It's been heartbreaking and it's also been
exhausting and I think in partthat might be part of a strategy
, I think, sometimes to wearpeople down until they just give
up.
So for me, like Rachel, likeyou, janet, like been talking
about caribou but not cariboumeetings with industry and done
planning and been withgovernment and sat with
(10:07):
scientists in just years andyears and years, and I have once
in a while I do hear somethingthat seems uplifting and
exciting that's happening,although these processes take a
long time.
So there's always, there'salways worry that you know a
fickle government might changeits mind, but there are.
(10:27):
There are some hopeful moments,but there are still a lot of
spaces where I attend sessionsbut I don't say very much
anymore because it's clearlystuck in some.
Sometimes it's even two stepsbackwards in the conversation.
I find many people don't realizethat in those science
(10:48):
conversations we are building onthe science that's already
there.
There's hundreds of studiesthat have been done on caribou.
Most of those studies there'snothing fundamentally different
about what's coming out of them.
They're, you know, nuanced andfinessed topics and information
that help fine tune how wemanage caribou habitat.
(11:09):
But I have not seen anythingcome out that has said that
disturbance isn't a major driverof caribou.
In the 15 years since theoriginal federal science was
done, in fact, those studiescoming out are validating and
reaffirming that.
But then, attending some ofthese public consultation
sessions, you'd think it was theopposite.
Rachel Plotkin (11:31):
One of the things that has been just so
frustrating to see and, janet,you mentioned Alberta, alberta
kind of has led the way on thisis Band-Aid solutions.
So when Caribbeanibou aredeclining and they want to keep
on doing their industrialresource extraction practices as
they do, that they have set uppredator control programs to
(11:55):
kill wolves in perpetuity, yearafter year after year, wolves
which have evolved, co-evolvedwith caribou as their prey and
have like a symbioticrelationship and are certainly
not you know the problem.
They're just the proxy for theproblem, which is the habitat
fragmentation that has changedthe rates of success of
predation and penning andsometimes building permanent
(12:19):
fences to keep caribou away fromwolves.
That's just.
It's just so appalling to methat those mechanisms for
keeping caribou alive, so thatthe provinces don't have to wear
their extirpation, have beenallowed to go ahead and have
become normalized.
And I think another thingthat's become normalized is our
(12:42):
narratives about habitatprotection.
One of the things that we talkabout sometimes is the need for
species at risk legislation toprioritize the needs of habitat
protection and restoration andwildlife recovery, and what we
see in the absence of that isthe language of balance, and so
(13:04):
politicians are always talkingabout the need to balance
ecological and economicobjectives and, for one thing,
we don't see them as polaropposites.
There can be green rewards inthe marketplace for doing
sustainable logging things likeFSC you mentioned you had on
(13:25):
your show but it's just.
It's a landscape of diminishingreturns for species like
caribou.
You have 100 hectares in 2000and industry wants it and
there's caribou there and apolitician says, okay, well,
we'll balance it and we'll give50 hectares to caribou and 50
hectares to industry.
And then, five years later,someone comes along and they
want hectares to caribou and 50hectares to industry.
(13:46):
And then, five years later,someone comes along and they
want to keep logging caribouhabitat and the politician of
the day says, okay, well, we'llbalance these values and we'll
take the 50 hectares and we'llgive 25 to caribou and 25 to
industry.
And that plays out until youhave ranges like the little
smoky, where scientists thinkthere is one or two percent left
habitat that is undisturbed.
(14:07):
And, honestly, the forestryindustry is still there saying
you need to take our values intoconsideration as well.
We need to keep logging and theplans are to keep logging in
the Little Smoky habitat, andthat I mean that's a crisis to
me of government responsibility.
It's a crisis in legislation,both at the provincial level and
(14:30):
at the federal level, andrecognize that in so doing, we
(14:52):
are allowing species todisappear, that we could recover
if we had the political willand the public mobilization to
do so.
Janet Sumner (14:54):
If you like listening to the Clear Cut and
want to keep the content coming,support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kaya andI.
Kaya Adleman (15:05):
The link to do so will be in the episode
description below.
You can also become a supporterby going to our website at
wwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut and alsomake sure to leave us a review
on your favorite podcaststreaming platform.
Janet Sumner (15:18):
It would really help the podcast yeah, here,
here, I think um little smoky isa.
They've kept what 26 cariboualive through basically killing
wolves, penning and doingeverything but protecting
habitat chance of survival overthe long term.
(15:49):
Penning and shooting wolves wasnot considered the path back to
ecological health.
It was at best a crutch, butit's.
I mean, the whole reason thatwe work on caribou, the whole
reason that any of us have everworked on caribou, is because we
care about the health of theecosystem and caribou are a good
proxy for that.
They help us understand whetheror not the ecosystem is doing
well and to have all of thesedifferent ways that we can
(16:12):
artificially, um, protect, uh, agroup of caribou and not even a
population, but a group ofcaribou, it's.
It's a false, it's a false dawn, it doesn't tell the actual
story.
So I share the pain.
I have worked on Caribou, likeboth of you have, for over 20
years and I would suggest thatit's not only a failure of
(16:36):
legislation but it's a failureof enforcement At some point.
The only way that goodlegislation works is if somebody
actually steps up and uses itand enforces it, and we have yet
to see some form of aprotection order or some form of
a safety net order for caribou.
Meanwhile ranges are decliningand in the red zone right across
(16:59):
Canada, so I don't know whatit's going to take, but at some
point somebody has to dosomething, or we will just see
the end of caribou, and thatwill mean that the boreal
ecosystem is in dire straits.
Rachel Plotkin (17:13):
And in places like Ontario where they had
strong species at risklegislation the Endangered
Species Act.
When it was brought into forcethey granted a year long
exemption for forestry and thatexemption just turned over, and
turned over, and turned overuntil finally it was turned
permanent.
So forestry does not have toadhere to the prohibitions
against habitat destructionunder the Endangered Species Act
(17:35):
in Ontario.
Julee Boan (17:37):
I live in northern Ontario, been to dozens and
dozens and dozens of town hallsand public events around caribou
and people are genuinelyconcerned about losing their
jobs, I mean, and they should be.
I mean we have two mills rightnow at least temporarily
shuttered, possibly permanentlyshuttered, and that can have a
ripple effect through the entireforestry sector because of how
(18:00):
the mills are set up andinterconnected, and so people
come to these town halls whenwhat they're really scared about
is their jobs and theircommunities and their kids and
their futures.
And there are unscrupulousindividuals that come there and
say what you really need to bescared about are caribou and you
need to be scared about arecaribou and you need to be
(18:20):
scared, really scared of thesepeople.
Janet Sumner (18:22):
yeah, I agree with that.
I think that one of the bigchallenges if you're not
protecting caribou habitat, thatmeans your fiber supply is also
going to be in trouble becauseyour forests are switching in
terms of the, maybe even theecotype.
We're seeing that um, moregrasslands in the southern
boreal and we're seeingconversion and we're seeing
things change and so if youdon't take care of caribou, then
(18:45):
you know your ecosystem isgoing to be changing and that's
got to be a concern for thelong-term health of communities
and forest-dependent communities.
So I agree with you.
Forest-dependent communities.
So I agree with you.
I don't know if it'sunscrupulous, but I think it is
certainly part of a strategy tominimize and sideline the
(19:08):
caribou discussion.
Rachel Plotkin (19:09):
Yeah, caribou are often blamed for downturns
in the industry that areactually due to global market
forces.
Julee Boan (19:17):
In the like, say, the economic column of interests
in forests.
There are huge corporations,there are indigenous tenure
holders, there are workers inmills and sometimes everyone is
lumped into one like monolith ofeconomic interest.
But actually a lot of thoseinterests are also in conflict
(19:38):
at times.
When I see workers pittedagainst Caribou, that's when I
start getting concerned.
It's at best unfair and it's, Iwould say, at worst it's
intentional about also not justpushing off the discussion on to
Caribou but relinquishingresponsibility of some of the
(19:58):
actors on the forest about howthey're, how they are, impacting
communities yeah, absolutelyokay, fair, fair point.
Janet Sumner (20:05):
I.
I take your point on that.
Um, I guess I was.
I was suggesting that it iskind of like in the climate
change world.
What we did for a long time iswe denied climate change.
It says, oh, it doesn't exist.
And then we said, well, it'snot caused by us, it's caused by
other things.
And so now, finally, we'vedecided, yes, it is caused by
emissions, and we've decided weneed to solve that.
(20:26):
But now we're going to say,well, we can't possibly solve
this because it will mean thateverybody's life is worse off
because they need to use oilproducts and we can't possibly
have a transition that goesbeyond that.
So that's what I mean by astrategy.
I think that some in theindustry are kind of looking
over their shoulder at thesuccess of the climate change
(20:48):
resistors and how that strategyhas worked out for oil and gas.
And now they're looking in aforestry way.
It's like caribou are not ourproblem.
I think Rachel talked aboutthis.
Caribou weren't in declinebecause of us.
They were in decline because ofother things that might have
been.
Hey, I think it was climatechange that caused the decline,
and um, and then it's like thescience comes out under stephen
(21:10):
harper government.
It's not not like it came outunder, you know, left-leaning
governments.
It was a government that had,but had, integrity around the
science, so that's fantastic.
But anyway, I just I feel thatthere is some greater strategy
at play as well, as you knowoffloading by corporate
(21:31):
interests their responsibilityaround this.
Rachel Plotkin (21:34):
It certainly has been successful because both
Julie and I have been innorthern communities where
downturns in the forestryindustry have been blamed on
caribou, even though theforestry industry was exempt
from having to protect caribouhabitat.
And one of the things that Ithink is interesting is that,
because there have been somedownturns in the market, there
(21:55):
actually is room to protectcaribou habitat, and Julie and I
co-authored a report on thiscalled Room for Both.
But again, caribou can be sucha good proxy for what is needed
to maintain the health of theboreal forest and we can use
their habitat needs to developplans that are truly sustainable
(22:17):
.
Kaya Adleman (22:19):
Well, I think it's more along the lines of I mean,
I'm not.
I'm not a woman in STEM, so notas cool as you guys, but my
background is economics mainly,and it seems like terrible, like
forestry issues, like no onecompanies aren't thinking about
the long-term or the long run,but everyone's thinking about
the short term and how tomaximize value for shareholders.
(22:42):
So it's let's shell out all ofthis money like for Band-Aid
solutions, like you were saying,rachel.
Let's, you know, do cariboupenning.
Let's, you know, kill wolves tostop predation.
Let's make everything look good.
Let's spend tens of millions ofdollars on like a glossy
forestry for the future campaignand let's not actually invest
(23:04):
any money in creating longerterm solutions that will help
the survival of the industry,like creating more value added
products, rethinking, likeproduct input mixes.
Yeah, it's just that's.
What drives me crazy, I think,is that there's all this money
that's being spent, that's beingput into these bandaid
(23:26):
solutions, and no money beseemingly being invested into
like the longevity of employmentopportunities and the longevity
of the industry, because ifthere's no more forest to
harvest, at the end of the day,the mills won't have anything to
run on.
Julee Boan (23:45):
And I think there will be forests to harvest.
It's just what.
Will those forests be good for?
Harvesting is a big question.
Is it going to mostly beforests, that the best value we
can get from it is to burn itfor energy at a plant in the
United Kingdom, or is it a treethat can help solve a housing
(24:06):
crisis problem in an Indigenouscommunity?
Janet Sumner (24:13):
I think the other thing about working on caribou
is that while we care about thehealth of the forest, we also do
care about long-term fibersupply, and from my perspective,
I've often been thinking aboutthis, as is it time to
transition to a economy thatthinks more in the ways of how
(24:37):
do we diversify the number oftree species that we might be
harvesting, the types of inputsthat we're putting into mills,
the types of materials thatmaybe we produce out of it, what
are the products, what are theother ways that we can look at
forestry, and could we even makethe carbon metrics work for us?
So, for example, I think if wecan show that we're doing less
(25:00):
damage in the forest, thatshould be worth something in
terms of the carbon market.
If we were to take fullownership of the carbon
emissions, then certainly wecould take more full ownership
of the carbon potential savingsthat we might be able to
administer if we were to do thisseriously.
But by shrouding all of this ina lot of a very sleight of hand
(25:23):
game, it prevents us from beingable to design the policies and
decisions that could actuallyintegrate carbon and caribou and
long-term jobs and long-termsurvival of those ecosystems.
So I think that it's wellbeyond time for the federal and
provincial governments to bemuch more transparent about the
(25:46):
impacts of the actions that areoccurring and then what the true
state of the forest is.
Where do you see hope?
Rachel Plotkin (25:54):
One of the places I see hope is the growing
recognition of Indigenousleadership and the application
of Indigenous governance, andour provinces have been doing so
poorly in managing them andenabling degradation, and I
really look forward to spaceswherein Indigenous governance
(26:19):
flourishes and Indigenous peoplecan reclaim their ability to be
the decision makers over forestand forest ecosystems we see a
lot of opportunity.
Julee Boan (26:33):
I mean, we're so fortunate in Canada we have a
lot of forest and there is a lotof potential about what can be
done there.
I do think we do need to address, like some of our local
problems first with our forests,rather than having commodities
that we're selling overseas.
We have issues we need to solvesolve and there is a role for
(26:53):
forestry and forest to play inthat.
But, as I said, I think it'sstepping back and thinking more
broadly about what a forest isand how are we going to steward
this resource and making surethat, you know, everyone is able
to come equally to the table tobring all the skills and
knowledge and innovation that'soutside of the forestry sector
(27:14):
as well.
There is a lot of innovationpotential from other people in
other sectors and other placesthat need to be brought into
this conversation in ameaningful way and actually be
able to influence how thedecisions are made, rather than
being considered sort ofsecondary to the approach that's
being taken right now, and so Ithink a lot of the potential
(27:35):
lies in how we actually go aboutmaking decisions around forests
and who has control over thesedecisions and who is welcome to
the table.
Rachel Plotkin (27:44):
I think just one other thing that provides me
hope, especially because inplaces like Alberta and British
Columbia there's no doubt thatcaribou are not going to survive
unless restoration is donequickly and it's done well and
it works.
We still don't know ifrestoration is going to work for
caribou at the population scaleand at the landscape scale.
(28:06):
But one of the things thatbrings me hope is that we are in
an era where we are talkingabout restoration, where the
federal government hasprioritized it and hopefully
that's something that lasts.
But I think the most hopefulthing is just the kind of awe I
have of nature's regenerativeforce.
(28:26):
You know that it's likerestoration is something that we
just have to help.
We just have to create thespace for it, and nature's drive
is kind of regenerative andthat brings me hope that
sometimes all we have to reallydo is just stand back and give
nature the of these importantstories to life.
Kaya Adleman (28:57):
You can actually support our work by going to our
website, wwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut, or you canclick the link in the episode
description below.
Your support means the world tous.
Janet Sumner (29:14):
I'll just speak to not that I'm being asked this
question, because I usually askthe questions, but I would say
that one of the reasons we dothis podcast is because we have
hope.
We have hope in the fact that,if we are to bring out these
stories from all different kindsof people, from all walks of
Canadians across the country youknow, speaking to scientists,
(29:40):
speaking to advocates, speakingto people who live on the land,
like David Flood, where he talksabout the Honorable Harvest,
etc.
Practitioners like Francoisonce was and is now the head of
FSC.
So these conversations, I'mhoping, bring Canadians a little
bit closer to the truth ofwhat's going on in our forests
(30:02):
and thereby starts to create anumber of people who want to
take action, because a lot ofthis is hidden from the general
public.
Certainly, the State of theForest report doesn't give
greater clarity to people, butI'm hopeful that these
conversations will actuallystart to inform people and
potentially change some of thethings that we're doing.
(30:23):
So that's why we're doing this,because it gives me some hope.
Yeah, the frustration is therefor sure.
Rachel Plotkin (30:30):
We're still here .
Janet Sumner (30:32):
Yeah, it's also to compare stories, because you
see, some of the stories thatget told about forest fires, for
example, or what gets toldabout caribou, or, for example,
oh, we have to get in and log ina park before it burns, you
know those kinds of things thatare happening in different parts
of the country and yet theydon't know that it's happening
from one province to the next.
(30:53):
And so I'm hoping, by revealingsome of this, we'll get to that
.
And that's what I think iseffective about the state of the
forest.
Seeing through this bin is thatit starts to give Canadians a
lot more tools to be able tolook at the reality of what's
going on in their forests.
So I think it's a hopefulreport in my mind.
(31:14):
There's definitely sending itout there with the intention
that people will grasp it andstart to say, well, what about
this, what about that?
So I'm hopeful about that.
Julee Boan (31:25):
And so you know that we do have a stateoftheforestca
website and that does includeall of the scientific literature
and reports that we cited inour paper, and we're hoping to
keep adding to that site.
So when people are interestedin understanding what research
has been done out there, what isit saying about some of these
(31:49):
sustainability metrics andforest degradation in particular
, there'll be a place for peopleto go and and grab that in like
one place.
So we'd love it if the podcastcould also um link the website,
because it'll help and we'reabsolutely we're in a process of
trying to do more, but at leastit's.
Kaya Adleman (32:08):
There's a place for it now do you guys have any
other calls to action, like howcan people get involved just
with your work or with the stateof the forest seeing through
the spin report?
Rachel Plotkin (32:22):
One of the things that people can do is
gain the literacy so that theythemselves can see through the
spin.
I think that a lot of thechallenge of achieving caribou
conservation is because industryhas had such a success in
creating anti-conservationnarratives in northern
communities, where there's justso much opposition to the idea
(32:46):
of habitat protection withoutrecognition that it could exist
alongside jobs, recognition thatit could exist alongside jobs.
So I think it's, yeah, learningto ask the right questions and
listening to lots more of yourpodcasts.
Janet Sumner (33:01):
Thanks for that.
I often compare being anenvironmentalist to one of my
favorite games at the fair whenyou go there and I think it's
called whack-a-mole, where youhave to kind of like you have to
whack that one and this one,and Julie's comments about the
multitude of processes andtrying to navigate all of that
feels a lot like to me, likewhack-a-mole.
(33:22):
It's like a new argumentagainst why you can't do good
things.
Oh, here's another new argument.
Oh, another new argument.
And it's like oh, now we're onreplay and I'm actually back to
the first argument.
Julee Boan (33:35):
That's what I mean One step forward, two steps back
.
Janet Sumner (33:39):
So, as you can tell from this episode, I went
to the fair a few number oftimes.
Actually, the London WesternFair, that's what I went to as a
child, and I playedwhack-a-mole and loved it, and I
could sometimes win at the gamenot often, but, yeah, that was
one of my favorite games at thefair, so I wouldn't say that
(34:01):
it's my favorite game.
Now, though, when I think aboutplaying whack-a-mole in real
life and trying to resolve thecaribou issue and trying to
resolve all the forestry issuesthat we've been working on and
it's not enough to just beoutside the door and be a critic
, but actually being inside thedoor takes a great deal of
patience, and that's why I havehuge respect for Julie and
Rachel, because they've beeninside the door working with
governments and working to tryto find solutions with
(34:21):
progressive industry, yet westill after what was it?
She said?
The reports came out in 2010,2012, on caribou and you had to
do your caribou plans, and overa decade later, we're still
waiting for these caribou plans,meanwhile caribou plans, and
over a decade later, we're stillwaiting for these caribou plans
.
Meanwhile, caribou aredeclining and we still haven't
got the solutions.
We still haven't followed ourown guideposts and done that.
(34:44):
Instead, we've been playingwhack-a-mole for a decade.
Kaya Adleman (34:47):
I wouldn't want to play whack-a-mole for a decade.
I mean it's fun for like 10minutes maybe, but maybe not a
decade.
I mean it's fun for like 10minutes maybe, but maybe not.
Maybe not a decade.
Yeah, I think what stood out tome in this conversation was
this idea that there's kind oftwo separate discussions
happening behind closed doorsand in the public arena, and
(35:10):
then what's frustrating also tome just to hear is that we have
this legislation in place andit's not being followed through
on at all, and then the messagebehind the closed doors is oh
yeah, like you, I mean kudos toRachel and Julie for sticking
(35:37):
through it, because I couldimagine that's yeah, more
whack-a-mole, maybe not Maybe.
I think I also just want tomaybe amend some of my comments
during our interview when I wastalking about the idea that
industry is spending millions ofdollars on caribou penning
(36:02):
areas, predation strategies,marketing campaigns, as opposed
to investing in ensuring thelong-term future of the forest
industry.
I think my main point with thatwas that it's a market
inefficiency, that there'ssomething wrong in the market
functions of the forest industryin Canada as a whole, and it
(36:25):
might be time to correct some ofthose problems.
Janet Sumner (36:31):
Yeah, it's about protecting yourself rather than
doing the work to change thepractices.
And I wouldn't want to brandishit and say it's every
participant, because, as I'vementioned I think previously
when we interviewed Anna that Ipersonally have worked on
caribou conservation plans inseveral different regions of
this country Quebec, ontario,alberta, and then more perfectly
(36:54):
, in Manitoba and Saskatchewanand there are some very good
companies out there who want todo good things and they try to
do them, but often they getpenned in sorry the pun there.
They get penned in on theirstrategies and their attempts to
make a difference byregulations or rules that won't
(37:14):
allow them to be more innovative.
And so that's deeply frustrating.
So my hat's off to them as well, because I know that the
caribou issue is not an easy one, and we seem to have set it up
so that we can't change and allwe do is or what seems to be the
result, is funding for moreprocess and all we do is, or
(37:35):
what seems to be.
Kaya Adleman (37:35):
the result is funding for more process.
Yeah, and it is hard to be agood individual actor in a
market that is inherently flawed, right?
Janet Sumner (37:43):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, Okay.
Well, and when we get backtogether, we'll maybe be able to
hear from Kaya on how her ALPtrip was kaya on how her alp
trip was.
Kaya Adleman (38:00):
Yes, I'm.
I'm going with my partner andhe's never been to the alps
before, which I have a lot ofexperience in because of the
german side of my family, and Iwas trying to hear watching
videos last night of um, thosealp alpine slides that you can
do.
It's really, really exciting.
I think you're really lookingforward to going is he excited
or terrified?
(38:21):
um, I think mostly, mostlyexcited, mostly excited.
Good, there are a few videos.
Um, if you look up alpine slidevideo compilations on youtube,
if that's something that youwant to spend your time doing,
there are a few videos that arecrashing.
Alpine slide crashes, yeah, soit can be dangerous.
(38:43):
You know it's scary stuff outthere.
Janet Sumner (38:46):
Well, hopefully, kayak comes back in one piece
and we can resume our terrificconversations that we're having,
and by that time I will alsopresumably have had my kayak in
the water.
I'm intending to get it in thewater this weekend, so so I hope
we can share stories about that.
Kaya Adleman (39:05):
So yeah, and again , I'll pen slides.
And again, if you want to readJulie andachel's stay in the
forest report, it'll be linkedin the episode description below
and we'll also be linking theroom for both report on caribou
that was mentioned in ourepisode.
Um, yeah, and go check out.
Janet Sumner (39:28):
Uh, stay the forestca if you want, yeah, and
the fire piece piece that Imentioned will probably put that
in our fire ecologist.
I just couldn't resist the rantbecause I'm getting very, very
concerned about wildfires inCanada On all different levels,
from a human to a nature, to aclimate perspective.
Kaya Adleman (39:49):
As we all are.
Janet Sumner (39:52):
If you like listening to the Clear Cut and
want to keep the content coming,support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kai andI.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.
Kaya Adleman (40:03):
You can also become a supporter by going to
our website atwwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut and alsomake sure to leave us a review
on your favorite podcaststreaming platform.
It would really help thepodcast and stay tuned for new
episodes by following us onsocial media.
Janet Sumner (40:23):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram,
twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.
Kaya Adleman (40:30):
See you next time.
Welcome to the Clear Cut.
Hi, I'm Janet Sumner, ExecutiveDirector at Wildlands League.
Kaya Adleman (00:08):
And I'm Kaya Adelman, Carbon Manager at
Wildlands League.
Janet Sumner (00:14):
Wildlands League is a Canadian conservation
organization working onprotecting the natural world.
Kaya Adleman (00:21):
The Clear Cut is bringing to you the much-needed
conversation on Canadian forestmanagement and how we can better
protect one of Canada's mostimportant ecosystems, as our
forests are reaching a tippingpoint.
Janet Sumner (00:41):
All right, it's our second episode with Julie
and Rachel as I said, two of thehardest working women in
conservation and we are going todive into more conversation
about caribou in this episodethe Alps.
(01:05):
So she'll be gone for a coupleof weeks, but we're going to
stay online with our episodes,so you don't need to worry about
that, and maybe when she getsback and we start to dive into
the next episode, we'll ask herhow her trip went.
But right now I want to startwith a little bit of a rant.
I want to talk about wildfiresand what's coming up and why
this is just really annoying me.
And so, for example, this lastweek, I've been seeing all kinds
(01:27):
of media on the fact that we'vealready started into wildfire
season, that wildfires areburning right now as we sit here
, and yet last summer, all I sawas a response was two or three
things.
One is, yes, we need morefirefighters OK, great.
But the other response was thisis being caused by climate
change yes, indeed, but theother response which I was
(01:50):
really surprised at or reallyconcerned about was we need to
log more faster.
And so just go with me on thisrant, as I was reading the media
again.
This week there's a new piecethat came out from Stéphane
LeBay, who is a reporter atGlacier Media, and he published
on.
He was at a meeting and he waslistening in to the logging
(02:12):
industry talking about how theircommunications need to be more,
about how they become a hero inthe narrative around wildfires
that they can get in and logfaster and log more.
But the interesting thing isthat all the experts who work on
fire are now saying that thisgrowing wildfire crisis is
actually partially to blame fromthe logging industry, that when
(02:35):
you're logging, or what we'vebeen doing for the last century
is we've been suppressing fire,so keep the forest from burning.
In a forest that actually verymuch naturally burns, keep it
from burning so that we can logthat timber, and that century of
fire suppression as a loggingpractice have left the forest
(02:59):
prime to burn.
And so, therefore, is thelogging industry the hero, or
are they one of the culprits incausing this in terms of climate
change, et cetera, and loggingpractices?
And then how do you square that?
What's the solution?
Is it just saying, oh yes, goin and log faster?
So we're going to unpack someof that in one of our episodes,
(03:23):
but for me, I'm alreadyterrified of this year's
wildfire season.
It's definitely a problem forpeople who live in communities
that are close to wildfirebreakout areas and also for the
creatures that live there, buton a planetary scale, it is of
concern because it's a hugecarbon cost, and then, in
(03:45):
addition to that, we had beenrelying on those forests to help
absorb the carbon, and so, bothfrom a climate and a nature
perspective and a humanperspective, wildfire season is
a terrifying prospect.
Kaya Adleman (04:00):
Yeah, and Jen Barron is a fire ecologist out
of BC who you're going to hearfrom in the next episode
actually, so she has a lot ofreally interesting things to say
, especially in a medialandscape where the conversation
around wildfires has been soclimate change and planetary
(04:21):
warming centric.
Janet Sumner (04:23):
Yeah, and it's got to be a little bit disconnected
, or seemingly so, for thegeneral public, who may or may
not be aware of Canada's Stateof the Forest Report, which
seems to say things are allgoing hunky-dory, or the, to
quote another YouTuber,okie-dokie.
You know that things are justgoing along swimmingly in terms
(04:45):
of how Canada is managing itsforests to see these big
outbreaks of wildfires and atthe same time, we know that
caribou ranges are crashing andthat's what we're going to talk
to Rachel and Julie about iscaribou ranges.
Rachel makes the quote that allcaribou ranges are in trouble
across the country except forthree provinces.
So we're going to get into alittle bit of why that's the
(05:06):
case with them, and we've talkedbefore with Justina Ray from
WCS and we've had conversationswith Anna Baggio, who's also in
our shop.
But we'll get into more of thecaribou conversation with Rachel
and Julie, who have worked onthose issues for a good long
time.
Kaya Adleman (05:24):
Yeah, and maybe to even bridge the gap between our
wildfire conversation and ourcaribou conversation, is that.
What I find particularlyinteresting in this episode is
the, the narratives that comefrom industry about these two
issues and how what they'repurporting publicly is is
(05:45):
benefits them directly, and howdo we apply.
You know, a critical thinkinglens to the messaging that we're
getting from the forestindustry and considering the
science that's out there as wellsay it's the big commercial.
Janet Sumner (06:06):
Uh, yeah, folks that are out there painting this
message.
It almost reminds me of when Iused to work on climate change
very directly with the oil andgas industry and how they were,
uh, selling us their performanceon climate change.
So this will be interesting toget into with uh, julie and
rachel on caribou, I wanted toswitch up a little bit and maybe
(06:28):
talk about, I don't know, thisspecies you might know a little
bit about called caribou.
Just, anybody has anything theymight want to say on caribou.
We've covered caribou.
We had Dr Justina Ray on fromWCS and we had a great
conversation with her and wetalked to Anna Baggio, who's
also worked on caribou forWildlands League, and I'm just,
(06:50):
I know right now I'm faced withtwo people who have a long
history of working on caribouand thinking about it, and
Rachel and I have a bit of ashared history of having done
some work on caribou in Albertaand we haven't yet, on the pod,
had a chance to talk aboutAlberta and Caribou.
But certainly Julie's alsoworked on Caribou and very
specifically in Ontario as well.
(07:11):
So either one of you want totake it away and talk about some
things about Caribou.
Rachel Plotkin (07:19):
As someone who's worked on Caribou for quite a
while now, it's a heartbreakingfile.
Like it's a file that feelslike the science is out there
that describes what caribou needto survive and recover, and
that's not the case for manyspecies.
For many species, we know thathabitat disturbance, habitat
(07:40):
degradation and fragmentationcan drive their decline, but
there hasn't been studies thatshow the relationship between
the levels of degradation andcalf survival like there have
been for caribou.
And when that was released itfelt like such a triumph.
It felt like we had thesignposts that we needed to
guide us in the decision-makingprocesses to actually manage
(08:01):
forests so that caribou couldsurvive and recover.
And that science came out in2008.
Like it's been around for solong and the federal government
did do a first good step inmandating provinces to develop
caribou range plans and lookingat the relationship between
(08:22):
disturbance and survival.
Looking at the relationshipbetween disturbance and survival
, they made a social decisionabout the probability of
persistence that they werepicking for caribou for
provinces to abide by and thatprobability of persistence was
60%.
So they're mandating provincesto develop caribou range plans
so that every caribou range hasa minimum of 65% undisturbed,
(08:46):
unfragmented habitat and, wherethat's been surpassed that it
should be restored, and againlike that's a 60% probability of
survival for caribou.
So what it did was it tippedthe trend away from declining
towards recovering, but like whowants a 60% chance that they're
going to survive, you know?
Like it's not very high.
And even then, like there'sjust been so much reticence from
(09:10):
provinces, especially theprovince where we live, Ontario,
and the forestry industry, tojust step up and take on the
responsibility of if we're goingto have caribou.
We need to change our practices.
We need to plan to ensure thatthese minimum unfragmented
(09:33):
habitat thresholds are upheld,and it's just been devastating
to watch year after year asbasically business as usual
practices have continued incaribou habitat.
Julee Boan (09:45):
It's been heartbreaking and it's also been
exhausting and I think in partthat might be part of a strategy
, I think, sometimes to wearpeople down until they just give
up.
So for me, like Rachel, likeyou, janet, like been talking
about caribou but not cariboumeetings with industry and done
planning and been withgovernment and sat with
(10:07):
scientists in just years andyears and years, and I have once
in a while I do hear somethingthat seems uplifting and
exciting that's happening,although these processes take a
long time.
So there's always, there'salways worry that you know a
fickle government might changeits mind, but there are.
(10:27):
There are some hopeful moments,but there are still a lot of
spaces where I attend sessionsbut I don't say very much
anymore because it's clearlystuck in some.
Sometimes it's even two stepsbackwards in the conversation.
I find many people don't realizethat in those science
(10:48):
conversations we are building onthe science that's already
there.
There's hundreds of studiesthat have been done on caribou.
Most of those studies there'snothing fundamentally different
about what's coming out of them.
They're, you know, nuanced andfinessed topics and information
that help fine tune how wemanage caribou habitat.
(11:09):
But I have not seen anythingcome out that has said that
disturbance isn't a major driverof caribou.
In the 15 years since theoriginal federal science was
done, in fact, those studiescoming out are validating and
reaffirming that.
But then, attending some ofthese public consultation
sessions, you'd think it was theopposite.
Rachel Plotkin (11:31):
One of the things that has been just so
frustrating to see and, janet,you mentioned Alberta, alberta
kind of has led the way on thisis Band-Aid solutions.
So when Caribbeanibou aredeclining and they want to keep
on doing their industrialresource extraction practices as
they do, that they have set uppredator control programs to
(11:55):
kill wolves in perpetuity, yearafter year after year, wolves
which have evolved, co-evolvedwith caribou as their prey and
have like a symbioticrelationship and are certainly
not you know the problem.
They're just the proxy for theproblem, which is the habitat
fragmentation that has changedthe rates of success of
predation and penning andsometimes building permanent
(12:19):
fences to keep caribou away fromwolves.
That's just.
It's just so appalling to methat those mechanisms for
keeping caribou alive, so thatthe provinces don't have to wear
their extirpation, have beenallowed to go ahead and have
become normalized.
And I think another thingthat's become normalized is our
(12:42):
narratives about habitatprotection.
One of the things that we talkabout sometimes is the need for
species at risk legislation toprioritize the needs of habitat
protection and restoration andwildlife recovery, and what we
see in the absence of that isthe language of balance, and so
(13:04):
politicians are always talkingabout the need to balance
ecological and economicobjectives and, for one thing,
we don't see them as polaropposites.
There can be green rewards inthe marketplace for doing
sustainable logging things likeFSC you mentioned you had on
(13:25):
your show but it's just.
It's a landscape of diminishingreturns for species like
caribou.
You have 100 hectares in 2000and industry wants it and
there's caribou there and apolitician says, okay, well,
we'll balance it and we'll give50 hectares to caribou and 50
hectares to industry.
And then, five years later,someone comes along and they
want hectares to caribou and 50hectares to industry.
(13:46):
And then, five years later,someone comes along and they
want to keep logging caribouhabitat and the politician of
the day says, okay, well, we'llbalance these values and we'll
take the 50 hectares and we'llgive 25 to caribou and 25 to
industry.
And that plays out until youhave ranges like the little
smoky, where scientists thinkthere is one or two percent left
habitat that is undisturbed.
(14:07):
And, honestly, the forestryindustry is still there saying
you need to take our values intoconsideration as well.
We need to keep logging and theplans are to keep logging in
the Little Smoky habitat, andthat I mean that's a crisis to
me of government responsibility.
It's a crisis in legislation,both at the provincial level and
(14:30):
at the federal level, andrecognize that in so doing, we
(14:52):
are allowing species todisappear, that we could recover
if we had the political willand the public mobilization to
do so.
Janet Sumner (14:54):
If you like listening to the Clear Cut and
want to keep the content coming,support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kaya andI.
Kaya Adleman (15:05):
The link to do so will be in the episode
description below.
You can also become a supporterby going to our website at
wwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut and alsomake sure to leave us a review
on your favorite podcaststreaming platform.
Janet Sumner (15:18):
It would really help the podcast yeah, here,
here, I think um little smoky isa.
They've kept what 26 cariboualive through basically killing
wolves, penning and doingeverything but protecting
habitat chance of survival overthe long term.
(15:49):
Penning and shooting wolves wasnot considered the path back to
ecological health.
It was at best a crutch, butit's.
I mean, the whole reason thatwe work on caribou, the whole
reason that any of us have everworked on caribou, is because we
care about the health of theecosystem and caribou are a good
proxy for that.
They help us understand whetheror not the ecosystem is doing
well and to have all of thesedifferent ways that we can
(16:12):
artificially, um, protect, uh, agroup of caribou and not even a
population, but a group ofcaribou, it's.
It's a false, it's a false dawn, it doesn't tell the actual
story.
So I share the pain.
I have worked on Caribou, likeboth of you have, for over 20
years and I would suggest thatit's not only a failure of
(16:36):
legislation but it's a failureof enforcement At some point.
The only way that goodlegislation works is if somebody
actually steps up and uses itand enforces it, and we have yet
to see some form of aprotection order or some form of
a safety net order for caribou.
Meanwhile ranges are decliningand in the red zone right across
(16:59):
Canada, so I don't know whatit's going to take, but at some
point somebody has to dosomething, or we will just see
the end of caribou, and thatwill mean that the boreal
ecosystem is in dire straits.
Rachel Plotkin (17:13):
And in places like Ontario where they had
strong species at risklegislation the Endangered
Species Act.
When it was brought into forcethey granted a year long
exemption for forestry and thatexemption just turned over, and
turned over, and turned overuntil finally it was turned
permanent.
So forestry does not have toadhere to the prohibitions
against habitat destructionunder the Endangered Species Act
(17:35):
in Ontario.
Julee Boan (17:37):
I live in northern Ontario, been to dozens and
dozens and dozens of town hallsand public events around caribou
and people are genuinelyconcerned about losing their
jobs, I mean, and they should be.
I mean we have two mills rightnow at least temporarily
shuttered, possibly permanentlyshuttered, and that can have a
ripple effect through the entireforestry sector because of how
(18:00):
the mills are set up andinterconnected, and so people
come to these town halls whenwhat they're really scared about
is their jobs and theircommunities and their kids and
their futures.
And there are unscrupulousindividuals that come there and
say what you really need to bescared about are caribou and you
need to be scared about arecaribou and you need to be
(18:20):
scared, really scared of thesepeople.
Janet Sumner (18:22):
yeah, I agree with that.
I think that one of the bigchallenges if you're not
protecting caribou habitat, thatmeans your fiber supply is also
going to be in trouble becauseyour forests are switching in
terms of the, maybe even theecotype.
We're seeing that um, moregrasslands in the southern
boreal and we're seeingconversion and we're seeing
things change and so if youdon't take care of caribou, then
(18:45):
you know your ecosystem isgoing to be changing and that's
got to be a concern for thelong-term health of communities
and forest-dependent communities.
So I agree with you.
Forest-dependent communities.
So I agree with you.
I don't know if it'sunscrupulous, but I think it is
certainly part of a strategy tominimize and sideline the
(19:08):
caribou discussion.
Rachel Plotkin (19:09):
Yeah, caribou are often blamed for downturns
in the industry that areactually due to global market
forces.
Julee Boan (19:17):
In the like, say, the economic column of interests
in forests.
There are huge corporations,there are indigenous tenure
holders, there are workers inmills and sometimes everyone is
lumped into one like monolith ofeconomic interest.
But actually a lot of thoseinterests are also in conflict
(19:38):
at times.
When I see workers pittedagainst Caribou, that's when I
start getting concerned.
It's at best unfair and it's, Iwould say, at worst it's
intentional about also not justpushing off the discussion on to
Caribou but relinquishingresponsibility of some of the
(19:58):
actors on the forest about howthey're, how they are, impacting
communities yeah, absolutelyokay, fair, fair point.
Janet Sumner (20:05):
I.
I take your point on that.
Um, I guess I was.
I was suggesting that it iskind of like in the climate
change world.
What we did for a long time iswe denied climate change.
It says, oh, it doesn't exist.
And then we said, well, it'snot caused by us, it's caused by
other things.
And so now, finally, we'vedecided, yes, it is caused by
emissions, and we've decided weneed to solve that.
(20:26):
But now we're going to say,well, we can't possibly solve
this because it will mean thateverybody's life is worse off
because they need to use oilproducts and we can't possibly
have a transition that goesbeyond that.
So that's what I mean by astrategy.
I think that some in theindustry are kind of looking
over their shoulder at thesuccess of the climate change
(20:48):
resistors and how that strategyhas worked out for oil and gas.
And now they're looking in aforestry way.
It's like caribou are not ourproblem.
I think Rachel talked aboutthis.
Caribou weren't in declinebecause of us.
They were in decline because ofother things that might have
been.
Hey, I think it was climatechange that caused the decline,
and um, and then it's like thescience comes out under stephen
(21:10):
harper government.
It's not not like it came outunder, you know, left-leaning
governments.
It was a government that had,but had, integrity around the
science, so that's fantastic.
But anyway, I just I feel thatthere is some greater strategy
at play as well, as you knowoffloading by corporate
(21:31):
interests their responsibilityaround this.
Rachel Plotkin (21:34):
It certainly has been successful because both
Julie and I have been innorthern communities where
downturns in the forestryindustry have been blamed on
caribou, even though theforestry industry was exempt
from having to protect caribouhabitat.
And one of the things that Ithink is interesting is that,
because there have been somedownturns in the market, there
(21:55):
actually is room to protectcaribou habitat, and Julie and I
co-authored a report on thiscalled Room for Both.
But again, caribou can be sucha good proxy for what is needed
to maintain the health of theboreal forest and we can use
their habitat needs to developplans that are truly sustainable
(22:17):
.
Kaya Adleman (22:19):
Well, I think it's more along the lines of I mean,
I'm not.
I'm not a woman in STEM, so notas cool as you guys, but my
background is economics mainly,and it seems like terrible, like
forestry issues, like no onecompanies aren't thinking about
the long-term or the long run,but everyone's thinking about
the short term and how tomaximize value for shareholders.
(22:42):
So it's let's shell out all ofthis money like for Band-Aid
solutions, like you were saying,rachel.
Let's, you know, do cariboupenning.
Let's, you know, kill wolves tostop predation.
Let's make everything look good.
Let's spend tens of millions ofdollars on like a glossy
forestry for the future campaignand let's not actually invest
(23:04):
any money in creating longerterm solutions that will help
the survival of the industry,like creating more value added
products, rethinking, likeproduct input mixes.
Yeah, it's just that's.
What drives me crazy, I think,is that there's all this money
that's being spent, that's beingput into these bandaid
(23:26):
solutions, and no money beseemingly being invested into
like the longevity of employmentopportunities and the longevity
of the industry, because ifthere's no more forest to
harvest, at the end of the day,the mills won't have anything to
run on.
Julee Boan (23:45):
And I think there will be forests to harvest.
It's just what.
Will those forests be good for?
Harvesting is a big question.
Is it going to mostly beforests, that the best value we
can get from it is to burn itfor energy at a plant in the
United Kingdom, or is it a treethat can help solve a housing
(24:06):
crisis problem in an Indigenouscommunity?
Janet Sumner (24:13):
I think the other thing about working on caribou
is that while we care about thehealth of the forest, we also do
care about long-term fibersupply, and from my perspective,
I've often been thinking aboutthis, as is it time to
transition to a economy thatthinks more in the ways of how
(24:37):
do we diversify the number oftree species that we might be
harvesting, the types of inputsthat we're putting into mills,
the types of materials thatmaybe we produce out of it, what
are the products, what are theother ways that we can look at
forestry, and could we even makethe carbon metrics work for us?
So, for example, I think if wecan show that we're doing less
(25:00):
damage in the forest, thatshould be worth something in
terms of the carbon market.
If we were to take fullownership of the carbon
emissions, then certainly wecould take more full ownership
of the carbon potential savingsthat we might be able to
administer if we were to do thisseriously.
But by shrouding all of this ina lot of a very sleight of hand
(25:23):
game, it prevents us from beingable to design the policies and
decisions that could actuallyintegrate carbon and caribou and
long-term jobs and long-termsurvival of those ecosystems.
So I think that it's wellbeyond time for the federal and
provincial governments to bemuch more transparent about the
(25:46):
impacts of the actions that areoccurring and then what the true
state of the forest is.
Where do you see hope?
Rachel Plotkin (25:54):
One of the places I see hope is the growing
recognition of Indigenousleadership and the application
of Indigenous governance, andour provinces have been doing so
poorly in managing them andenabling degradation, and I
really look forward to spaceswherein Indigenous governance
(26:19):
flourishes and Indigenous peoplecan reclaim their ability to be
the decision makers over forestand forest ecosystems we see a
lot of opportunity.
Julee Boan (26:33):
I mean, we're so fortunate in Canada we have a
lot of forest and there is a lotof potential about what can be
done there.
I do think we do need to address, like some of our local
problems first with our forests,rather than having commodities
that we're selling overseas.
We have issues we need to solvesolve and there is a role for
(26:53):
forestry and forest to play inthat.
But, as I said, I think it'sstepping back and thinking more
broadly about what a forest isand how are we going to steward
this resource and making surethat, you know, everyone is able
to come equally to the table tobring all the skills and
knowledge and innovation that'soutside of the forestry sector
(27:14):
as well.
There is a lot of innovationpotential from other people in
other sectors and other placesthat need to be brought into
this conversation in ameaningful way and actually be
able to influence how thedecisions are made, rather than
being considered sort ofsecondary to the approach that's
being taken right now, and so Ithink a lot of the potential
(27:35):
lies in how we actually go aboutmaking decisions around forests
and who has control over thesedecisions and who is welcome to
the table.
Rachel Plotkin (27:44):
I think just one other thing that provides me
hope, especially because inplaces like Alberta and British
Columbia there's no doubt thatcaribou are not going to survive
unless restoration is donequickly and it's done well and
it works.
We still don't know ifrestoration is going to work for
caribou at the population scaleand at the landscape scale.
(28:06):
But one of the things thatbrings me hope is that we are in
an era where we are talkingabout restoration, where the
federal government hasprioritized it and hopefully
that's something that lasts.
But I think the most hopefulthing is just the kind of awe I
have of nature's regenerativeforce.
(28:26):
You know that it's likerestoration is something that we
just have to help.
We just have to create thespace for it, and nature's drive
is kind of regenerative andthat brings me hope that
sometimes all we have to reallydo is just stand back and give
nature the of these importantstories to life.
Kaya Adleman (28:57):
You can actually support our work by going to our
website, wwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut, or you canclick the link in the episode
description below.
Your support means the world tous.
Janet Sumner (29:14):
I'll just speak to not that I'm being asked this
question, because I usually askthe questions, but I would say
that one of the reasons we dothis podcast is because we have
hope.
We have hope in the fact that,if we are to bring out these
stories from all different kindsof people, from all walks of
Canadians across the country youknow, speaking to scientists,
(29:40):
speaking to advocates, speakingto people who live on the land,
like David Flood, where he talksabout the Honorable Harvest,
etc.
Practitioners like Francoisonce was and is now the head of
FSC.
So these conversations, I'mhoping, bring Canadians a little
bit closer to the truth ofwhat's going on in our forests
(30:02):
and thereby starts to create anumber of people who want to
take action, because a lot ofthis is hidden from the general
public.
Certainly, the State of theForest report doesn't give
greater clarity to people, butI'm hopeful that these
conversations will actuallystart to inform people and
potentially change some of thethings that we're doing.
(30:23):
So that's why we're doing this,because it gives me some hope.
Yeah, the frustration is therefor sure.
Rachel Plotkin (30:30):
We're still here .
Janet Sumner (30:32):
Yeah, it's also to compare stories, because you
see, some of the stories thatget told about forest fires, for
example, or what gets toldabout caribou, or, for example,
oh, we have to get in and log ina park before it burns, you
know those kinds of things thatare happening in different parts
of the country and yet theydon't know that it's happening
from one province to the next.
(30:53):
And so I'm hoping, by revealingsome of this, we'll get to that
.
And that's what I think iseffective about the state of the
forest.
Seeing through this bin is thatit starts to give Canadians a
lot more tools to be able tolook at the reality of what's
going on in their forests.
So I think it's a hopefulreport in my mind.
(31:14):
There's definitely sending itout there with the intention
that people will grasp it andstart to say, well, what about
this, what about that?
So I'm hopeful about that.
Julee Boan (31:25):
And so you know that we do have a stateoftheforestca
website and that does includeall of the scientific literature
and reports that we cited inour paper, and we're hoping to
keep adding to that site.
So when people are interestedin understanding what research
has been done out there, what isit saying about some of these
(31:49):
sustainability metrics andforest degradation in particular
, there'll be a place for peopleto go and and grab that in like
one place.
So we'd love it if the podcastcould also um link the website,
because it'll help and we'reabsolutely we're in a process of
trying to do more, but at leastit's.
Kaya Adleman (32:08):
There's a place for it now do you guys have any
other calls to action, like howcan people get involved just
with your work or with the stateof the forest seeing through
the spin report?
Rachel Plotkin (32:22):
One of the things that people can do is
gain the literacy so that theythemselves can see through the
spin.
I think that a lot of thechallenge of achieving caribou
conservation is because industryhas had such a success in
creating anti-conservationnarratives in northern
communities, where there's justso much opposition to the idea
(32:46):
of habitat protection withoutrecognition that it could exist
alongside jobs, recognition thatit could exist alongside jobs.
So I think it's, yeah, learningto ask the right questions and
listening to lots more of yourpodcasts.
Janet Sumner (33:01):
Thanks for that.
I often compare being anenvironmentalist to one of my
favorite games at the fair whenyou go there and I think it's
called whack-a-mole, where youhave to kind of like you have to
whack that one and this one,and Julie's comments about the
multitude of processes andtrying to navigate all of that
feels a lot like to me, likewhack-a-mole.
(33:22):
It's like a new argumentagainst why you can't do good
things.
Oh, here's another new argument.
Oh, another new argument.
And it's like oh, now we're onreplay and I'm actually back to
the first argument.
Julee Boan (33:35):
That's what I mean One step forward, two steps back
.
Janet Sumner (33:39):
So, as you can tell from this episode, I went
to the fair a few number oftimes.
Actually, the London WesternFair, that's what I went to as a
child, and I playedwhack-a-mole and loved it, and I
could sometimes win at the gamenot often, but, yeah, that was
one of my favorite games at thefair, so I wouldn't say that
(34:01):
it's my favorite game.
Now, though, when I think aboutplaying whack-a-mole in real
life and trying to resolve thecaribou issue and trying to
resolve all the forestry issuesthat we've been working on and
it's not enough to just beoutside the door and be a critic
, but actually being inside thedoor takes a great deal of
patience, and that's why I havehuge respect for Julie and
Rachel, because they've beeninside the door working with
governments and working to tryto find solutions with
(34:21):
progressive industry, yet westill after what was it?
She said?
The reports came out in 2010,2012, on caribou and you had to
do your caribou plans, and overa decade later, we're still
waiting for these caribou plans,meanwhile caribou plans, and
over a decade later, we're stillwaiting for these caribou plans
.
Meanwhile, caribou aredeclining and we still haven't
got the solutions.
We still haven't followed ourown guideposts and done that.
(34:44):
Instead, we've been playingwhack-a-mole for a decade.
Kaya Adleman (34:47):
I wouldn't want to play whack-a-mole for a decade.
I mean it's fun for like 10minutes maybe, but maybe not a
decade.
I mean it's fun for like 10minutes maybe, but maybe not.
Maybe not a decade.
Yeah, I think what stood out tome in this conversation was
this idea that there's kind oftwo separate discussions
happening behind closed doorsand in the public arena, and
(35:10):
then what's frustrating also tome just to hear is that we have
this legislation in place andit's not being followed through
on at all, and then the messagebehind the closed doors is oh
yeah, like you, I mean kudos toRachel and Julie for sticking
(35:37):
through it, because I couldimagine that's yeah, more
whack-a-mole, maybe not Maybe.
I think I also just want tomaybe amend some of my comments
during our interview when I wastalking about the idea that
industry is spending millions ofdollars on caribou penning
(36:02):
areas, predation strategies,marketing campaigns, as opposed
to investing in ensuring thelong-term future of the forest
industry.
I think my main point with thatwas that it's a market
inefficiency, that there'ssomething wrong in the market
functions of the forest industryin Canada as a whole, and it
(36:25):
might be time to correct some ofthose problems.
Janet Sumner (36:31):
Yeah, it's about protecting yourself rather than
doing the work to change thepractices.
And I wouldn't want to brandishit and say it's every
participant, because, as I'vementioned I think previously
when we interviewed Anna that Ipersonally have worked on
caribou conservation plans inseveral different regions of
this country Quebec, ontario,alberta, and then more perfectly
(36:54):
, in Manitoba and Saskatchewanand there are some very good
companies out there who want todo good things and they try to
do them, but often they getpenned in sorry the pun there.
They get penned in on theirstrategies and their attempts to
make a difference byregulations or rules that won't
(37:14):
allow them to be more innovative.
And so that's deeply frustrating.
So my hat's off to them as well, because I know that the
caribou issue is not an easy one, and we seem to have set it up
so that we can't change and allwe do is or what seems to be the
result, is funding for moreprocess and all we do is, or
(37:35):
what seems to be.
Kaya Adleman (37:35):
the result is funding for more process.
Yeah, and it is hard to be agood individual actor in a
market that is inherently flawed, right?
Janet Sumner (37:43):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, Okay.
Well, and when we get backtogether, we'll maybe be able to
hear from Kaya on how her ALPtrip was kaya on how her alp
trip was.
Kaya Adleman (38:00):
Yes, I'm.
I'm going with my partner andhe's never been to the alps
before, which I have a lot ofexperience in because of the
german side of my family, and Iwas trying to hear watching
videos last night of um, thosealp alpine slides that you can
do.
It's really, really exciting.
I think you're really lookingforward to going is he excited
or terrified?
(38:21):
um, I think mostly, mostlyexcited, mostly excited.
Good, there are a few videos.
Um, if you look up alpine slidevideo compilations on youtube,
if that's something that youwant to spend your time doing,
there are a few videos that arecrashing.
Alpine slide crashes, yeah, soit can be dangerous.
(38:43):
You know it's scary stuff outthere.
Janet Sumner (38:46):
Well, hopefully, kayak comes back in one piece
and we can resume our terrificconversations that we're having,
and by that time I will alsopresumably have had my kayak in
the water.
I'm intending to get it in thewater this weekend, so so I hope
we can share stories about that.
Kaya Adleman (39:05):
So yeah, and again , I'll pen slides.
And again, if you want to readJulie andachel's stay in the
forest report, it'll be linkedin the episode description below
and we'll also be linking theroom for both report on caribou
that was mentioned in ourepisode.
Um, yeah, and go check out.
Janet Sumner (39:28):
Uh, stay the forestca if you want, yeah, and
the fire piece piece that Imentioned will probably put that
in our fire ecologist.
I just couldn't resist the rantbecause I'm getting very, very
concerned about wildfires inCanada On all different levels,
from a human to a nature, to aclimate perspective.
Kaya Adleman (39:49):
As we all are.
Janet Sumner (39:52):
If you like listening to the Clear Cut and
want to keep the content coming,support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kai andI.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.
Kaya Adleman (40:03):
You can also become a supporter by going to
our website atwwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut and alsomake sure to leave us a review
on your favorite podcaststreaming platform.
It would really help thepodcast and stay tuned for new
episodes by following us onsocial media.
Janet Sumner (40:23):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram,
twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.
Kaya Adleman (40:30):
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.