March 27, 2024 • 49 mins
If natural forests are ‘self-willed, self-managing, and self-replacing’ to respond and adapt to disturbances like fire and pest-outbreaks, should we be logging more as some suggest? Or should our approach be more precautionary?
This week, Michelle Connolly from Conservation North takes us back into the forests of British Columbia. She breaks down for us the severity of B.C.'s industrial logging impacts that her organization has documented through spatial mapping. While logging is advertised as a necessary means to manage B.C.’s forests, including for pests and wildfires, we unpack why fire and pests are actually part of the natural forest cycle.
Learn more about Conservation North on their website and check out the Seeing Red map.
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.
Okay, welcome back to thepodcast, janet.
Janet Sumner (00:44):
Thanks, Kaia.
Kaya Adleman (00:45):
It's been a week.
Janet Sumner (00:47):
It has been a week I've been to Africa and back
here we are.
Kaya Adleman (00:51):
Yeah, that's crazy .
How long were you in Africa for?
Again, it's not even like threefull days.
Janet Sumner (00:57):
Almost no time, you know, talking to the FSC
folks about some of the things Ithink about forestry.
So anyway, but we weren'tworking on forestry in Africa,
it was more just talking aboutconceptual ideas.
So yeah very, very short visitand not good for the climate,
but sometimes you have to gosomewhere to have a conversation
with people who are makingdecisions and thinking about big
(01:19):
issues, and that was that wasmy purpose.
So happy to back on Terra Firmahere here in canada and doing
the podcast in a very uh,climate friendly way, just uh,
talking to people across thecountry rather than having to
fly all over the place on zoom.
Kaya Adleman (01:34):
You're no, uh, harry and megan yeah, they're
flying all over the place, thoseguys yeah, I've, I've.
Janet Sumner (01:42):
You know, I I don't think I've ever been even
remotely considered to be aHarriet Megan.
Well, that's not.
I'd have some shared roots inthe sense that I was born in the
UK but never, ever, ever beenconsidered in the same breath.
So that's okay though.
Well, anyway, let's get down toit.
(02:05):
This is an interview withMichelle Connolly.
I've been a big fan of the workof Conservation North for a
number of years and I contactedher when we started doing, or
when we had finished our work onlogging scars and they were
doing some work around mappingcumulative footprint, and you're
going to get a chance to hearabout that and try to figure out
(02:29):
where are the areas that havenot had an industrial logging
footprint yet, and she talksabout that in this episode.
So I'm really grateful to herfor coming on and speaking about
that.
It was definitely one of thereasons that I wanted to reach
out to her because, while I'vebeen about that, it was
definitely one of the reasonsthat I wanted to reach out to
her because, well, I've beentrying to talk to groups across
Canada on who else is doing worklike logging scars, and we have
(02:54):
a future episode coming upwhere we talk a little bit about
this, but one of the things forCanadians is it's very
difficult to make decisionsabout our forests when we
actually can't see the trueimpact of what's happening in
our forests.
We have to trust that whenpeople say, oh yeah, we're
replanting all those trees andthey all come back, whether that
(03:16):
even happens and it might notbe through any ill intention but
we don't know, we can't see it,we can't monitor it and,
frankly, there's nobody outthere necessarily doing that.
In Ontario they measure it whenit's at free to grow, but this
cumulative disturbance footprintin a British Columbia context
and they've used that to try andfind a way to say well, here
(03:53):
are the forests that areremaining, that are still
natural or, with that, do notyet have an industrial footprint
.
So that's one of the thingsthat I'm looking forward to as
we talk to her about over thenext two episodes.
It's one of the things that I'mlooking forward to as we talk
to her about over the next twoepisodes.
Kaya Adleman (04:06):
Yeah, I don't know For our listeners who do pay
attention to forestry in thenews.
You might actually know orrecognize Michelle Connelly from
the BBC Panorama journalisticinvestigative.
Sorry, I think it'sinvestigative journalism series
(04:28):
on television that came out in2022.
She was talking to thereporters from the BBC about
some of the biomass productionthat's going on in British
Columbia that we talked about onour last few episodes with
Stand on Earth and we get intoit a little bit in not this
episode, but the next episode aswell.
And sorry, I really hate to dothis, but I'm going to throw in
(04:50):
one more British royalty jokethat I'm going to borrow from my
dad.
So this is stolen and it'sprobably going to be painful,
are?
Janet Sumner (04:58):
you saying this is a dad joke?
Are you telling the audienceget ready, buckle up.
It's a dad joke.
Kaya Adleman (05:03):
Yes, it's a dad joke, and it's not just a dad
joke, it's a my dad joke, soit's even worse.
So the BBC Panorama is, youknow, they're always delivering
terrible news.
They're delivering terriblenews about Canada's forests, and
it's also the program thatrevealed that King Charles was
being unfaithful to PrincessDiana.
(05:24):
So just terrible, terriblestories coming out of that
television series.
Janet Sumner (05:31):
So therefore, since we know that that was
terrible news, we should alsoknow that this is terrible news,
right?
Kaya Adleman (05:37):
Yes, exactly.
Janet Sumner (05:39):
And your dad told you that joke.
Kaya Adleman (05:41):
Yes, he did.
Janet Sumner (05:43):
Thanks, David my dad's named David too.
Maybe it's a David thing.
Kaya Adleman (05:50):
It is Lots of dads named David, but yeah.
Dave, Dave, Dave in our dadjokes.
Janet Sumner (05:56):
Yeah, he tells dad jokes, so maybe that's it,
maybe it's.
They should be reframed as dadjokes as opposed to Dave, or
David jokes as opposed to dadjokes dad jokes as opposed to
David, or David jokes as opposedto dad jokes.
Kaya Adleman (06:08):
Yes, I like that.
But yeah, I'm quite excited forthis episode.
We get into a lot of reallyinteresting stuff.
Talk about the work ofConservation North, like Jana
just mentioned, and then we'llalso get into the underlying
frame of forests in BC and whatthe government, what the
provincial government's policy,looks like.
So quite excited to get into it.
Janet Sumner (06:27):
Yeah, and we won't dive in in the first episode,
but the second episode also.
Make sure you listen to thisone as well, because Michelle's
going to talk about the recentreport that they did with a UK
group on how old-growth forestsare being used for making wood
pellets and some of the best oldgrowth out there.
She also unpacks a little bitabout what's happened after the
(06:50):
old growth report came out ofBritish Columbia.
And then the other thing that Ifind really interesting about
what she talks about is many ofthe environmental groups have
very much focused on old growthand she started to identify how
this might be a problem, becauseif you only protect the sort of
area around an old growth butyou don't protect the whole
(07:12):
forest, you haven't necessarilyprotected that ecosystem or that
range of species and range ofages of the trees.
So it's going to be a greatconversation with her and, yeah,
I'm excited to dive into it.
Hey, kaya, it's another episodeof the Clear Cut and we are
(07:37):
very fortunate to have MichelleConnolly here.
I'm looking forward to this.
How?
Kaya Adleman (07:42):
about you.
Yeah, me too.
I'm looking forward to it.
We're going back to BritishColumbia.
I feel like we haven't beenthere in a while, so it's very
exciting.
Janet Sumner (07:49):
I know we don't even have to leave our chairs.
You're in Montreal and I'm herein Toronto, and we can actually
zoom across the country and getwhat's going on in British
Columbia from the people who areworking there.
And Michelle Connelly is one ofthose, and I've been a big fan
of her work and certainly a bigfan of the Conservation North
work for quite some time, and soit's just a.
(08:09):
I think one of the treats ofthis podcast is we get to sit
down with some of the peoplethat we think everybody should
sit down with and just kind ofhave you know, an hour of
conversation with them, and so,whether it's, you know, harvey
Locke, or whether it's DavidFlood or now, michelle Connolly,
this is a fantastic opportunityto hear from some of the people
who are experts in the field.
Kaya Adleman (08:31):
Yeah, michelle, welcome to the podcast.
Michelle Connolly (08:33):
Thank you both.
That's really kind, kind thingsto say More than deserving.
Janet Sumner (08:40):
So, michelle, we're going to just start with
asking you to give us a littlebit of background on who you are
, why you do this work, andmaybe something a little bit
about you and who you are, justso the audience can maybe get a
three-dimensional view ofMichelle Connolly.
Michelle Connolly (08:57):
Sure.
So I have an undergraduatedegree in the natural sciences
and a graduate degree in forestdisturbance ecology and I
consider myself pretty literatein the field of ecology.
I think what started myinterest in nature and
protecting it must come fromgrowing up at the edge of a
(09:22):
community north of Edmonton.
You know our place was right atthe edge of town and I spent a
lot of time when I was growingup in an ecosystem that I now
know is called Aspen Parkland,so it's kind of prairie with
clumps of aspen.
That's the habitat I grew up inand spent a lot of time in as a
(09:44):
child.
I didn't have a great homeupbringing so I spent a lot of
time outside, and when I thinkabout it now, I think that's why
I developed a pretty closeemotional connection to nature.
So I did most of my schoolingwithin a forestry department At
(10:08):
the time.
Enrolling in a forestry programwas how you got exposure to
natural history, ecology and youget to spend time outdoors
learning.
The other option for me wouldhave been to spend a lot of time
staring into microscopes and Ijust didn't want to do that.
I would say that my position onprotecting nature was already
(10:33):
well informed when I well formedwhen I registered and started
taking classes.
There was a time when Iconsidered going into forestry
as a professional and I decidedagainst that after a short
period because going down thatroad, at least in BC, requires
(10:53):
you to view forests as acommodity and I was unable to do
that.
So, um, the, the culture offorestry, the need to manage, uh
, really didn't, didn't work forme.
In my opinion, it's modernhumans that need managing, not
nature, not forests.
So I've worked for governments,academia and environmental
(11:16):
groups.
For the most part I workedbriefly for the BC government
doing forestry tenureadministration.
I worked with the federalgovernment and First Nations on
a marine protected area.
I worked as a field technicianfor many years, again indulging
that need to spend time innature.
I worked in an entomologycollection at a university and I
(11:39):
volunteered for environmentalgroups of all kinds, from the
confrontational and radical tomore mainstream ones.
So I try and do paid work thataligns with my values.
But it would be difficult tohave a paid job that aligns
exactly and that's why I startedConservation North.
Janet Sumner (12:02):
That's a fascinating history.
I spent quite a few yearsworking for the pembina
institute, based out of draytonvalley.
Now, I didn't work um, I wasn'tbased out of drayton valley,
but I spent a lot of time goingup to drayton valley for
meetings etc and over a five orsix year period um having the
(12:22):
the great opportunity of goingthere.
So you probably know mostpeople don't know where Drake
Valley is, but I bet you dowhich is not far from Edmonton.
Michelle Connolly (12:32):
Yeah, that's right yeah.
Janet Sumner (12:34):
Yeah, and I also spent about seven years going
back and forth working on oilcaribou conservation planning in
and around Edmonton.
So that's Edmonton, a greatstomping ground.
Maybe we can.
You talked about being atechnician.
I forget the term you used, butI just wanted to, because
(12:56):
people hear these terms and theymay not know what it means.
And I have a vague idea of whatit means, or I think I know what
it means, but being atechnician means you're out in
the woods, right?
You're out there stomping thosegrounds, is that?
Is that correct, or am I?
Michelle Connolly (13:12):
Yeah, the projects?
I was, yes, so when I worked asa field technician, I was
generally helping on eithergovernment or university
students doing their projects,and so they would hire a bunch
of us to go and help themcollect data in the field, so
information about the behaviorof animals or the, you know, the
patterns of vegetation on theground.
(13:34):
So, yes, it is, it's outdoorwork.
I've worked in, you know,forest fire field work,
vancouver Island, marmotfieldwork, my own research,
which was on basically recoveryafter an insect outbreak in the
inland temperate rainforest.
You know insect surveys,pollinator surveys.
(13:56):
So yes, those are the folksthat do the outside work of
collecting information, usuallyto support some kind of research
.
Janet Sumner (14:10):
Where are you based right now?
Michelle Connolly (14:12):
Oh yeah, of course.
So we're based in Klateliteneterritory, so it's in north
central BC.
Kaya Adleman (14:31):
No-transcript um, and you guys do, in addition to
forestry work, you doconservation stuff across all um
, all kinds of fields and areas,right?
Michelle Connolly (14:47):
uh, we most definitely do not do forestry
work um our our work is basedaround essentially resisting
forestry and primary forests.
Yeah, so I can talk aboutconservation, or so.
So we're a volunteer collectivecomprising academics, resource
professionals, first Nations,forest industry workers, artists
and the general publicconcerned with wildlife and
(15:10):
biodiversity loss in northcentral BC.
We recognize that communitiesof native species and their
habitats have the right tocoexist with humans, and we
promote habitat protection byemploying both kind of science
and advocacy to changegovernment policies on on land
(15:31):
management.
So I would describe us as anecocentric or a biocentric group
.
So we think that primaryforests ought to be protected
for their own sake.
So our main motivation forstarting is that you know, all
of us knew, we were aware thatglobal wildlife populations have
dropped precipitously in thelast 50 years.
(15:55):
I think that you know there wasa study that came out that said
that they've dropped 60% since1970.
Canadian mammal populationshave dropped by over 40%.
The province of BC hasthousands of species at risk and
we're in an era of biologicalannihilation is how the Living
Planet Report from 2018described it.
(16:17):
Biologists tell me thateverything we're bothering to
measure is in decline, and thereason for this is habitat loss,
and the most obvious habitatloss in our region is of natural
forest.
So a natural or a primaryforest is one that's never been
logged.
So our work is about resistingforestry, ie logging and road
(16:42):
building in natural forests, inprimary forests, for the
protection of remainingbiodiversity.
So I think according to thelatest kind of global analysis
on primary forests, about 80%has been degraded through roads
and logging, so that means thatabout 20% of Earth's forest
(17:03):
cover has never beenindustrialized.
Some of that is in BC.
The intensive forest managementsimplifies natural forest
ecosystems in a big way and werealized that that's what we
should be focusing on here if weactually want to protect
wildlife, protect other lifeforms.
So we've spent the better partof six years doing public
(17:29):
outreach and we hear fromretired logging contractors,
foresters, sometimes truckloggers, hunters, trappers,
anglers that are very unhappywith the rate and scale of
industrial logging of our lastprimary forests, and over that
time we've interacted withprobably thousands of people
(17:52):
opposed to logging the remainingnatural forests, which is
really interesting consideringwhere we are.
Even in northern BC, where oureconomy has revolved around the
production of forest products,there's very little social
license to log the remaining oldgrowth but also other forms of
(18:14):
primary forest, either forreally high value products or
pellets, which is, of course, anemerging problem.
One of the things thattriggered us forming our group
is that we had the opinion thatbig environmental groups were
far too moderate.
(18:34):
They focus on what'spolitically achievable as
opposed to what nature actuallyneeds, which is to stop being
annihilated.
And so we formed the group sothat we could say what we wanted
to say anytime.
So we're all volunteers andthis is a labor of love.
(18:56):
It's a vocation for most of us.
Janet Sumner (19:01):
Wow, I love that history.
One of the things that I thinkis also important is, while you
might be saying some of the moreradical things are the things
that need to be said, the workof Conservation North, at least,
seems to me to be deeplygrounded in data and information
(19:22):
and good science.
So it's not what some peoplemight think is that the more
radical groups don't have aconnection to the natural, to
the sciences, and so that's notat all what Conservation North
is.
I've seen some amazing workcoming out of you, and the thing
that I was most attracted towhat I discovered we were doing
(19:45):
the logging scars report here inOntario and I was trying to
find out if anybody had donesomething similar or had looked
at that kind of informationacross Canada, and I found the
maps that Conservation North haddone, and then I think that was
the first time I contacted you,because I was really blown away
by those.
Can you maybe just talk aboutthat mapping of cumulative
(20:07):
footprint?
Michelle Connolly (20:09):
Yes, of course.
So we created the Seeing Redmap about a year after we
realized that it wasn't just oldgrowth forests that are at risk
in BC, it's actually all agesof natural forest or forest
that's never been logged.
So we wanted to betterunderstand what the areas were
(20:33):
that we wanted to protect, andto do that we had to map them
out.
So we enlisted the help of areally skilled GIS person and we
acquired the publicly availablelogging, cut blocks data from
the BC government, as well asroads data and basically all the
data that indicate kind of aconversion of an ecosystem, and
(20:58):
we pulled all that together,mapped it out and the negative
space is the area of naturalforests.
So it's an interactive map thatusers can zoom in and out of.
You can go to an area thatyou're interested in and see
what the state of naturalforests is.
There you can see where thenatural forests are, forests is
there.
(21:18):
You can see whether you knowwhere the natural forests are
and where the logging impactshave happened.
We meant it to be a tool thatcommunity groups like ours can
use to figure out what areasthey need to defend if they want
to defend them.
So it is a very black and whiteimage of forests in BC, but to
(21:41):
us it enables us to know wherethe most valuable places are on
the landscape to protect.
Janet Sumner (21:51):
In terms of the data, and this is just something
that I'm deeply interested in,because one of the things that
we found with logging scars whenwe did it, there was a section
we were doing which was groundtruthing, which meant Trevor was
going out and you know dronefootage etc.
And the resolution that we wereable to get to was a 40
centimeter resolution, so wewere able to see some of the
logging roads, etc.
(22:11):
Whereas if we just used thegovernment data, that was going
to give us a 30 meter resolution.
So have you had any of thatkind of challenge, shall I say,
in a BC context, or what kind ofdata sets are you using that
allow you to see the forest?
Michelle Connolly (22:28):
Yes, so it's all been the publicly available
data that's on the DataBCcatalog.
So in terms of the details ofthe quality of the data, we just
accepted that we had that datato work with and that was the
most straightforward way to mapit.
I'm sure there are issues withkind of the scale and resolution
(22:52):
of the roads data, but weworked with what was available
to us and it ended up beingquite an effective way to
communicate the cumulativefootprint of industrial
development across the province.
I want to say one thing aboutyour comment, janet, on being a
science-based group.
We are, and that's just becausesome of us have backgrounds in
(23:15):
the natural sciences.
We've been lucky enough to goto school and learn what it's
about.
Backgrounds in the naturalsciences.
We've been lucky enough to, youknow, go to school and learn
what it's about.
But at the same time we reallysee science as just one way of
kind of understanding how theworld works, and so we
understand its limitations aswell and we certainly don't want
to elevate it as really theonly way of understanding things
(23:36):
.
But you're right that it'sreally.
It's really enabled us to kindof interpret the information
that comes out of ecology and touse that to kind of further our
campaign work to protectnatural forests.
So you know, some of us areeducated in the sciences, but I
definitely wouldn't describe nothaving that as being a
(23:59):
limitation for any groups thatwant to, you know, pursue local
protection of their forests.
In fact, I think a lot of thelanguage you know from forestry
and ecology can be kind oftechnocratic, and one of the
things that we've tried to avoidis preventing the emotion in
all of it.
So I guess we try to strike abalance between using science to
(24:24):
inform our work but also notsquishing out all the feelings
and emotions out of what we do,because of course that's a
really important driver issimply our love for natural wild
places.
Janet Sumner (24:40):
Yeah, absolutely A hundred percent.
I think it's the people who arethe best advocates for the
people, who know the land and,whether that's indigenous or
local communities, who actuallylive and breathe that land.
It's really important to behaving that conversation and
have them driving the outcomesand what they want to see.
But I do like the ConservationNorth work that you've been able
(25:02):
to publish because I think whenyou're trying to have that
dialogue with the structures ofpower, you need to have the
tools to be able to challengeconceptions and sort of present
alternate views.
And I've also been reallypleased to see the rise of
Indigenous knowledge and we dida great set of interviews with
(25:24):
David Flood, who's an Indigenousregistered professional
forester.
He just brings those twoworldviews together.
It's quite fantastic.
Kaya Adleman (25:33):
Hey, are you liking the clear cut as much as
we like making it?
Your donation helps us bringmore of these important stories
to life.
You can actually support ourwork by going to our website,
wwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut, or you canclick the link in the episode
(25:54):
description below.
Your support means the world tous.
In the episode descriptionbelow your support means the
world to us.
I really love the mapping workthat Conservation North has put
out as well, and I'm curiousabout the response that those
publications have received andhow that tool has been used to
further the conservation workthat you guys are doing.
Michelle Connolly (26:16):
Yes.
So I mean it was a veryshocking thing for people to
realize that industrial forestryhad had such an impact on our
landscapes.
We got a very positive responsefrom many people saying, well,
no one's ever done this before,and so we're, as far as I know,
(26:38):
the only group in BC thatactually talks about primary
forests as a thing.
I would love to be wrong, butI'm fairly sure that we are the
only group that actuallyacknowledges that natural
forests of all ages are just asimportant as old growth.
Obviously, old growth isparticularly rare and vulnerable
because the, you know, becausethe best lumber comes from them,
(27:01):
but with the you get a sensethat some people are just refers
to the age of the trees.
(27:41):
The concept of primary forestpulls in ethics a little bit.
So primary forests are foreststhat have never been
industrially managed.
A lot of people wrapped up in,you know, the industrial
forestry complex really seeforests, natural forests as
(28:02):
either, you know, unmanaged orabout to be managed.
My experience interacting withprofessional foresters here is
that all primary forests aredestined to be managed, that
they ought to be managed, thatthey should be managed and can
(28:24):
be managed and we can controlthe outcomes.
So that's very much, uh, thebelief system of professional
forestry and um in in term, inyou know, from my perspective,
in my experience.
So people are offended when yougo.
Actually, these places arenatural and they ought to stay
natural.
(28:45):
Professional forestry is aboutmanaging, it's about controlling
and and we believe that theseplaces should be free of human
management and control andthat's an offensive thing to a
lot of people, wrapped up inkind of professional forestry
belief systems.
(29:05):
So we did get some negativeresponses to our map and it
would have come from a place ofbeing offended by the fact that
we're suggesting that someplaces ought to remain free of
quote management, which, ofcourse, is really just a
euphemism for, you know, machineassisted industrial logging,
(29:28):
right.
Kaya Adleman (29:30):
Yeah, it's a very anthropocentric mindset, like
very much placing humans firstas opposed to looking at the
ecosystems of the forests as awhole of my favorite papers was
(29:55):
written by is by Holling andMephi.
Michelle Connolly (29:57):
So CS Holling , or Buzz Holling, was an
ecologist from BC and he talkedabout command and control and
the pathology of naturalresource management.
And it's all about how commandand control management usually
results in unforeseenconsequences for both natural
(30:18):
ecosystems and human welfare inthe form of ecological collapse
and social and economic strife.
Man in control are suppressionof fire and fire prone forests,
the conversion of primaryforests to production forests or
plantations, the use ofherbicides to kill anything that
(30:40):
isn't a conifer, mechanicalsite preparation where you try
and change like a wetland into aplace where you can grow trees.
So when you simplify complexsystems, they lose their ability
to bounce back fromperturbations, and what they
described is essentially like abelief system that humans can or
(31:00):
capable of imposing our ownwill on nature and then it'll
somehow magically do what wewant it to do.
And they point out the problemswith that.
So whenever I get the chance, Ibring up that idea that the
pathological need to command andcontrol nature is actually
what's leading to ourannihilating of other forms of
(31:23):
life.
Janet Sumner (31:25):
Is underlying this ?
The belief system that if wemanage these ecosystems that we
can get our desired results.
These ecosystems, that we canget our desired results.
And I don't just mean likethere's some belief out there
that we can manage and actuallykeep caribou on the landscape.
And there is some belief systemout there that if we just get
(31:50):
in there and we cut those oldtrees before they catch fire you
know, there's these kinds ofthought processes and a lot of
times they're done as anexperiment we don't actually
have any science or any proofthat those assertions are true.
Kaya Adleman (32:06):
That's a limitation of science.
Janet Sumner (32:08):
Sorry, so absolutely it is Kaya.
And so I'm just wondering.
Like we seem to be going alongwith this grand experiment that
started and we adjusted.
Every once in a while wechanged some of the regulations
or the guidance or whatever, butreally underlying it all is
some grander myth that weactually do control the outcomes
(32:31):
and have certainty over them docontrol the outcomes and have
certainty over them.
Michelle Connolly (32:43):
Yes, and I have a lot of thoughts on that.
It's absolutely been a massiveexperiment and that's why we're
calling for a stoppage of thisexperiment.
We need to take a precautionaryapproach at this point in time,
and that's why our group pointsout that the only real reason
oh sorry, the only real way toprotect wildlife and other life
(33:06):
forms is actually to makenatural forests off limits to
industrial logging, simplybecause we don't know how they
work.
We don't understand theircomplexity, their self-willed,
self-managing, self-replacingsystems, and we need to leave
the ones we have left well alone, exposed to these arguments
(33:38):
about how, because the climateis changing, we need to double
down on our management, andthat's the totally predictable
response of this whole machine,and the antidote to that is we
ought to zone out places wherewe absolutely can't go.
We need to basically show somediscipline and some humility at
our own lack of knowledge abouthow mother nature works.
(34:02):
Of course, the forestryindustrial complex always has
the answer, and their solutionto everything is always just to
log and replant right.
There's basically two tools inthat toolbox and our perspective
is no, please continue tomanage what we've already
previously industrialized.
(34:23):
Those are the places ofopportunity that we might be
able to improve what we're doing.
Bc is, you know, most of ourlandscapes now, most of our
productive forests are gone.
See, is, you know, most of ourlandscapes now, most of our
productive forests are gone.
Those, those are areas ofopportunity for quote management
, for doing these experiments.
But we really think that thetime for experimenting in
(34:45):
natural ecosystems uh, in in thesense, ie logging and then
pretending we don't understandthe consequences of that, the
the era for that should be over,and that's why we're saying no,
we actually need to justcompletely step back from areas
that have never beenindustrially quote managed.
Janet Sumner (35:05):
Yeah, wildlands has suggested something similar
in Ontario and in a few placesactually that the idea is, if
the contention is forestry issustainable, then sustain it on
the existing footprint.
Michelle Connolly (35:21):
Yeah, that's a brilliant way to word it.
Janet Sumner (35:24):
Yeah, and then stay out of the areas that have
yet to be touched, and once youcan prove that you've actually
been able to do that, then wemight have another conversation.
But at this juncture in time,especially with the collapse of
nature and being on the verge ofthe sixth mass extinction, we
need to be thinking aboutstaying out of these intact
(35:44):
areas, not only for nature'ssake, but also because they're
going to be our climateresilience.
I mean, they are the placesthat are going to absorb carbon
for us.
Michelle Connolly (35:53):
Yes, absolutely, they are the places
that are going to absorb carbon.
For us, yes, absolutely.
And you know, because a lot ofthese people just can't help
themselves.
They're proposing quote, bettermanagement.
You know like, oh yes, werealize industrial clear-cutting
was bad, so let's just dobetter logging, and that's not
going to help.
So let's just do better loggingand that's not going to help.
(36:14):
We don't have much faith orconfidence in the ability of the
people coming out of the systemto, quote better manage forests
.
So alternative forms ofharvesting, partial cutting,
ecosystem-based management donot cut it, so to speak.
Management, do not cut it, soto speak.
(36:40):
We think those things belong insecondary forests and not
primary forests.
So you're always going toencounter people that just want
to do better.
But it's really just anextension of this totally
uncontrolled experiment.
They want to be able tocontinue experimenting in
primary forests and for us, wesay no.
We say no, please do that inthe places that have already
been degraded.
Kaya Adleman (37:06):
Would you say that's the state of the forests
in BC right now?
Is that the underlying frame isto continue to harvest and say
that things are going to bebetter or that things are going
to be improved?
Michelle Connolly (37:21):
Yes.
So people invested inindustrial forestry are putting
forth the idea that we cansomehow improve these things by
just logging natural forestsbetter, and we we heartily
disagree.
We've seen this experiment playout, you know our whole lives,
and it's failing.
Mountain caribou populationsare tanking.
(37:43):
Fisher and our red listedNorthern goshawk is in trouble.
Bull trout are in trouble.
All the signs are pointing tono.
Humans are actually failing atquote managing forests, and so
we actually need to step backright now if we're serious about
protecting biodiversity.
(38:03):
So the bc government has hasmade the, you know, stated that
they want to, uh, prioritizebiodiversity and ecosystem
health is how they put it.
So back in 2020, the BCgovernment sent two foresters
(38:24):
around BC to collect informationabout what the general public
wanted to see when it comes toold growth, and they turned that
into a report and that's turnedinto kind of a high level
priority to do a quote paradigmshift.
That's how the BC governmentdescribes it and out of that,
they have started an initiativeto prioritize biodiversity and
(38:48):
ecosystem health.
(39:12):
No-transcript, that's right.
That was the old growthstrategic review report, yeah,
and we have a lot of criticismsabout it and which I'm happy to
to talk about.
You know one.
It, it's, it's.
It's not a perfect report.
There are some really goodthings about it, but there are
(39:33):
also big warning flags thatactually strongly hinted about,
strongly hinted at what we'reseeing now, which is, you know,
mentions of logging in parks todeal with agents that are
against forest health.
You know, any appearances ofthe word forest health are a
massive red flag to a group likeours that's focused on
(39:56):
protecting natural processes andnatural forests.
The reports peppered with theidea that, you know, insect
disturbances and fire are amassive disaster that we have to
deal with by logging.
So there were some really bigred flags for us in that report
and what we're seeing now.
(40:17):
You know we've been prettyvocal about the problems with
that report and the fact that wehad to be really vigilant about
the kinds of things it said,and now we're seeing the results
of that.
The BC government is usingnatural disturbances to argue
for more logging and that reallyit really betrays the fact that
they have no idea how naturalforest ecosystems actually work
(40:41):
and the value, in creatinglandscape heterogeneity, of all
these different disturbancesthat happen.
You know, like old growth,natural forests are like a big
pod of boiling water.
Forests get old and then theydie and you get all these
different ages across thedifferent landscapes.
(41:01):
That's how natural forestsdevelop.
Somehow we came to a situationand we were part of the problem
too, because we were onlyfocused on old growth forests
for quite a while.
We were, you know, we wethought maybe that protecting
only the oldest age classes ofnatural forests would somehow
protect wildlife habitat, and ofcourse we were wrong.
(41:25):
Forests exist in different ages.
They, you know, they havedisturbances like a severe fire
or a severe you know defoliationor a spruce beetle outbreak,
and then they are technicallyyoung and then they regenerate
again and become old, and youneed to leave opportunities for
all of that to happen if youwant to keep your biodiversity
on the landscape.
But unfortunately, most of theactivism in BC and of course,
(41:50):
like I said, I was part of thistoo, like I said, I was part of
this too only ever focused onthat one age class of natural
forest.
And we realized, you know, withthe coming out of that report,
with the pellet industry and thefact that the government was
enabling, for example, loggingin post-wildfire natural forests
(42:12):
in forests that were consideredlower value because they're not
quite old growth, say themature forests or younger, we
realized, like, actually we'releaving big parts of the
landscape vulnerable by notpointing out why all ages of
primary forest are important,not just the oldest age classes.
And of course, if you'reprogressively logging younger
(42:35):
age classes of natural forest,you're using that, you're losing
that potential for naturallyregenerated old growth.
So the trajectory is just thatwe one day will just not have
any old growth left, because,you know, things happen and in
our, in our local forests here,which are, you know, used to be
(42:56):
spruce dominated, they're stillspruce dominated.
We have old growth spruceforests.
The disturbance that inevitablyhappens in them is a spruce
beetle outbreak.
That is how those forestsregenerate.
Um, but uh, but we've beennuking them like there's no
(43:23):
tomorrow, because we just a fewyears ago had, uh, you know, an
increase in the population ofspruce beetles, which is, of
course, a native insect.
It's part of our nativebiodiversity and um and logging
targeted those forests,exaggerating how, what
proportion was dead.
But of course, even if it wasall dead which is impossible,
that never happens those forestswould still have lots of value
ecologically and of course,that's the mountain caribou
habitat right there.
So we've been steadilydestroying those, those old
(43:47):
forests that have beenexperiencing natural processes
like beetle disturbances andannihilating them, annihilating
the complexity and the structurethat wildlife need, and now
we're wondering why we're havingproblems with wildlife
populations.
Janet Sumner (44:12):
So one of the things that Michelle says that I
really enjoyed is that shesuggests that we've got to stop
this massive experiment.
It removes a lot of ingredientsand then tries to regrow trees,
(44:38):
but it doesn't necessarilyregrow that full complexity of,
and richness of, species, and soshe suggests that we need to
take this precautionary approach, certainly at this time when
we've got, you know, the sixmass extinction on the horizon
and and all of these speciesthat are going extinct, and that
BC is a hotbed of endangeredspecies.
(45:02):
And if we're going to make thiswork, we actually have to leave
the natural forests alone andnot allow industrial logging to
keep expanding into all of theseforests, because we just don't
understand the complexity in aforest, and I like the term that
she used.
She calls them a self-willedecosystem.
It's managing self-replacingsystems and we need to leave
(45:27):
these alone, and the way it wasexplained to me way back when I
started at Wildlands League wasthat evolution is the driving
force of change.
To me way back when I startedat wildlands league was that
evolution is the driving forceof change, and so I like her
term about these are self-willedsystems, that they are.
All different kinds of elementsare being driven in the forest
by the forest.
Yeah, it's fantastic.
Kaya Adleman (45:46):
Yeah, that's, that was my main takeaway from this
as well, and I guess, maybe toadd onto that, that the
government policy is really outof step with these ideas and the
knowledge that we hold abouthow ecosystems actually function
and how forest ecosystemsfunction, and that provincial
(46:07):
governments, essentially, arestill treating forests as
something to be managed whichwe've talked about a lot on this
podcast and that the fact thatwe have to manage these forests
because of these naturaldisturbances is just kind of an
excuse to make arguments formore logging.
Fires and pest outbreaks arenatural management tools.
(46:31):
And then there's also this ideathat she talks about natural
management tools.
And then there's also this ideathat she talks about or she
uses the term natural forest tode-center old growth, because
these natural disturbances thatthe governments are trying to
manage for kind of drive whatyou said, janet are these like
self-replacing systems, and thatus continuously putting our
(46:53):
fingers into the pot kind ofjust makes everything worse.
And I guess another way to frameit is well, I was actually
first introduced to Michellewhen I started at Wildlands and
I saw her give a presentationand she was saying you know, we
can't control fires, we can'tcontrol pest outbreaks that
(47:15):
impact our forests?
Why not?
Why don't we focus on the onething that we do have absolute
control over, which is thecontrol we have on our
industrial impacts andindustrial disturbances to the
forest?
Really like that way to thinkabout the kind of intricate and
(47:38):
dynamic systems of the forestand how we treat them as humans.
Janet Sumner (47:42):
Yeah, I think that this is exactly where I'm
thinking we need to go as well.
Is that, in the face of climatechange, giving forests more
ability and more space to adaptand change and respond to
climate change, rather thantrying to get in there and log
the heck out of them as asolution to climate change?
(48:03):
So I'm very interested in thisnext section that we're going to
talk to Michelle.
She's going to unpack even moreand she'll talk about the
biomass link a lot more and howher report has traced that.
So I look forward to nextweek's conversation with you,
kaya.
Kaya Adleman (48:19):
Yeah, me too Looking forward to it.
Janet Sumner (48:24):
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.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.
Kaya Adleman (48:35):
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 (48:56):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram,
twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.
Kaya Adleman (49:03):
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.
Okay, welcome back to thepodcast, janet.
Janet Sumner (00:44):
Thanks, Kaia.
Kaya Adleman (00:45):
It's been a week.
Janet Sumner (00:47):
It has been a week I've been to Africa and back
here we are.
Kaya Adleman (00:51):
Yeah, that's crazy .
How long were you in Africa for?
Again, it's not even like threefull days.
Janet Sumner (00:57):
Almost no time, you know, talking to the FSC
folks about some of the things Ithink about forestry.
So anyway, but we weren'tworking on forestry in Africa,
it was more just talking aboutconceptual ideas.
So yeah very, very short visitand not good for the climate,
but sometimes you have to gosomewhere to have a conversation
with people who are makingdecisions and thinking about big
(01:19):
issues, and that was that wasmy purpose.
So happy to back on Terra Firmahere here in canada and doing
the podcast in a very uh,climate friendly way, just uh,
talking to people across thecountry rather than having to
fly all over the place on zoom.
Kaya Adleman (01:34):
You're no, uh, harry and megan yeah, they're
flying all over the place, thoseguys yeah, I've, I've.
Janet Sumner (01:42):
You know, I I don't think I've ever been even
remotely considered to be aHarriet Megan.
Well, that's not.
I'd have some shared roots inthe sense that I was born in the
UK but never, ever, ever beenconsidered in the same breath.
So that's okay though.
Well, anyway, let's get down toit.
(02:05):
This is an interview withMichelle Connolly.
I've been a big fan of the workof Conservation North for a
number of years and I contactedher when we started doing, or
when we had finished our work onlogging scars and they were
doing some work around mappingcumulative footprint, and you're
going to get a chance to hearabout that and try to figure out
(02:29):
where are the areas that havenot had an industrial logging
footprint yet, and she talksabout that in this episode.
So I'm really grateful to herfor coming on and speaking about
that.
It was definitely one of thereasons that I wanted to reach
out to her because, while I'vebeen about that, it was
definitely one of the reasonsthat I wanted to reach out to
her because, well, I've beentrying to talk to groups across
Canada on who else is doing worklike logging scars, and we have
(02:54):
a future episode coming upwhere we talk a little bit about
this, but one of the things forCanadians is it's very
difficult to make decisionsabout our forests when we
actually can't see the trueimpact of what's happening in
our forests.
We have to trust that whenpeople say, oh yeah, we're
replanting all those trees andthey all come back, whether that
(03:16):
even happens and it might notbe through any ill intention but
we don't know, we can't see it,we can't monitor it and,
frankly, there's nobody outthere necessarily doing that.
In Ontario they measure it whenit's at free to grow, but this
cumulative disturbance footprintin a British Columbia context
and they've used that to try andfind a way to say well, here
(03:53):
are the forests that areremaining, that are still
natural or, with that, do notyet have an industrial footprint
.
So that's one of the thingsthat I'm looking forward to as
we talk to her about over thenext two episodes.
It's one of the things that I'mlooking forward to as we talk
to her about over the next twoepisodes.
Kaya Adleman (04:06):
Yeah, I don't know For our listeners who do pay
attention to forestry in thenews.
You might actually know orrecognize Michelle Connelly from
the BBC Panorama journalisticinvestigative.
Sorry, I think it'sinvestigative journalism series
(04:28):
on television that came out in2022.
She was talking to thereporters from the BBC about
some of the biomass productionthat's going on in British
Columbia that we talked about onour last few episodes with
Stand on Earth and we get intoit a little bit in not this
episode, but the next episode aswell.
And sorry, I really hate to dothis, but I'm going to throw in
(04:50):
one more British royalty jokethat I'm going to borrow from my
dad.
So this is stolen and it'sprobably going to be painful,
are?
Janet Sumner (04:58):
you saying this is a dad joke?
Are you telling the audienceget ready, buckle up.
It's a dad joke.
Kaya Adleman (05:03):
Yes, it's a dad joke, and it's not just a dad
joke, it's a my dad joke, soit's even worse.
So the BBC Panorama is, youknow, they're always delivering
terrible news.
They're delivering terriblenews about Canada's forests, and
it's also the program thatrevealed that King Charles was
being unfaithful to PrincessDiana.
(05:24):
So just terrible, terriblestories coming out of that
television series.
Janet Sumner (05:31):
So therefore, since we know that that was
terrible news, we should alsoknow that this is terrible news,
right?
Kaya Adleman (05:37):
Yes, exactly.
Janet Sumner (05:39):
And your dad told you that joke.
Kaya Adleman (05:41):
Yes, he did.
Janet Sumner (05:43):
Thanks, David my dad's named David too.
Maybe it's a David thing.
Kaya Adleman (05:50):
It is Lots of dads named David, but yeah.
Dave, Dave, Dave in our dadjokes.
Janet Sumner (05:56):
Yeah, he tells dad jokes, so maybe that's it,
maybe it's.
They should be reframed as dadjokes as opposed to Dave, or
David jokes as opposed to dadjokes dad jokes as opposed to
David, or David jokes as opposedto dad jokes.
Kaya Adleman (06:08):
Yes, I like that.
But yeah, I'm quite excited forthis episode.
We get into a lot of reallyinteresting stuff.
Talk about the work ofConservation North, like Jana
just mentioned, and then we'llalso get into the underlying
frame of forests in BC and whatthe government, what the
provincial government's policy,looks like.
So quite excited to get into it.
Janet Sumner (06:27):
Yeah, and we won't dive in in the first episode,
but the second episode also.
Make sure you listen to thisone as well, because Michelle's
going to talk about the recentreport that they did with a UK
group on how old-growth forestsare being used for making wood
pellets and some of the best oldgrowth out there.
She also unpacks a little bitabout what's happened after the
(06:50):
old growth report came out ofBritish Columbia.
And then the other thing that Ifind really interesting about
what she talks about is many ofthe environmental groups have
very much focused on old growthand she started to identify how
this might be a problem, becauseif you only protect the sort of
area around an old growth butyou don't protect the whole
(07:12):
forest, you haven't necessarilyprotected that ecosystem or that
range of species and range ofages of the trees.
So it's going to be a greatconversation with her and, yeah,
I'm excited to dive into it.
Hey, kaya, it's another episodeof the Clear Cut and we are
(07:37):
very fortunate to have MichelleConnolly here.
I'm looking forward to this.
How?
Kaya Adleman (07:42):
about you.
Yeah, me too.
I'm looking forward to it.
We're going back to BritishColumbia.
I feel like we haven't beenthere in a while, so it's very
exciting.
Janet Sumner (07:49):
I know we don't even have to leave our chairs.
You're in Montreal and I'm herein Toronto, and we can actually
zoom across the country and getwhat's going on in British
Columbia from the people who areworking there.
And Michelle Connelly is one ofthose, and I've been a big fan
of her work and certainly a bigfan of the Conservation North
work for quite some time, and soit's just a.
(08:09):
I think one of the treats ofthis podcast is we get to sit
down with some of the peoplethat we think everybody should
sit down with and just kind ofhave you know, an hour of
conversation with them, and so,whether it's, you know, harvey
Locke, or whether it's DavidFlood or now, michelle Connolly,
this is a fantastic opportunityto hear from some of the people
who are experts in the field.
Kaya Adleman (08:31):
Yeah, michelle, welcome to the podcast.
Michelle Connolly (08:33):
Thank you both.
That's really kind, kind thingsto say More than deserving.
Janet Sumner (08:40):
So, michelle, we're going to just start with
asking you to give us a littlebit of background on who you are
, why you do this work, andmaybe something a little bit
about you and who you are, justso the audience can maybe get a
three-dimensional view ofMichelle Connolly.
Michelle Connolly (08:57):
Sure.
So I have an undergraduatedegree in the natural sciences
and a graduate degree in forestdisturbance ecology and I
consider myself pretty literatein the field of ecology.
I think what started myinterest in nature and
protecting it must come fromgrowing up at the edge of a
(09:22):
community north of Edmonton.
You know our place was right atthe edge of town and I spent a
lot of time when I was growingup in an ecosystem that I now
know is called Aspen Parkland,so it's kind of prairie with
clumps of aspen.
That's the habitat I grew up inand spent a lot of time in as a
(09:44):
child.
I didn't have a great homeupbringing so I spent a lot of
time outside, and when I thinkabout it now, I think that's why
I developed a pretty closeemotional connection to nature.
So I did most of my schoolingwithin a forestry department At
(10:08):
the time.
Enrolling in a forestry programwas how you got exposure to
natural history, ecology and youget to spend time outdoors
learning.
The other option for me wouldhave been to spend a lot of time
staring into microscopes and Ijust didn't want to do that.
I would say that my position onprotecting nature was already
(10:33):
well informed when I well formedwhen I registered and started
taking classes.
There was a time when Iconsidered going into forestry
as a professional and I decidedagainst that after a short
period because going down thatroad, at least in BC, requires
(10:53):
you to view forests as acommodity and I was unable to do
that.
So, um, the, the culture offorestry, the need to manage, uh
, really didn't, didn't work forme.
In my opinion, it's modernhumans that need managing, not
nature, not forests.
So I've worked for governments,academia and environmental
(11:16):
groups.
For the most part I workedbriefly for the BC government
doing forestry tenureadministration.
I worked with the federalgovernment and First Nations on
a marine protected area.
I worked as a field technicianfor many years, again indulging
that need to spend time innature.
I worked in an entomologycollection at a university and I
(11:39):
volunteered for environmentalgroups of all kinds, from the
confrontational and radical tomore mainstream ones.
So I try and do paid work thataligns with my values.
But it would be difficult tohave a paid job that aligns
exactly and that's why I startedConservation North.
Janet Sumner (12:02):
That's a fascinating history.
I spent quite a few yearsworking for the pembina
institute, based out of draytonvalley.
Now, I didn't work um, I wasn'tbased out of drayton valley,
but I spent a lot of time goingup to drayton valley for
meetings etc and over a five orsix year period um having the
(12:22):
the great opportunity of goingthere.
So you probably know mostpeople don't know where Drake
Valley is, but I bet you dowhich is not far from Edmonton.
Michelle Connolly (12:32):
Yeah, that's right yeah.
Janet Sumner (12:34):
Yeah, and I also spent about seven years going
back and forth working on oilcaribou conservation planning in
and around Edmonton.
So that's Edmonton, a greatstomping ground.
Maybe we can.
You talked about being atechnician.
I forget the term you used, butI just wanted to, because
(12:56):
people hear these terms and theymay not know what it means.
And I have a vague idea of whatit means, or I think I know what
it means, but being atechnician means you're out in
the woods, right?
You're out there stomping thosegrounds, is that?
Is that correct, or am I?
Michelle Connolly (13:12):
Yeah, the projects?
I was, yes, so when I worked asa field technician, I was
generally helping on eithergovernment or university
students doing their projects,and so they would hire a bunch
of us to go and help themcollect data in the field, so
information about the behaviorof animals or the, you know, the
patterns of vegetation on theground.
(13:34):
So, yes, it is, it's outdoorwork.
I've worked in, you know,forest fire field work,
vancouver Island, marmotfieldwork, my own research,
which was on basically recoveryafter an insect outbreak in the
inland temperate rainforest.
You know insect surveys,pollinator surveys.
(13:56):
So yes, those are the folksthat do the outside work of
collecting information, usuallyto support some kind of research
.
Janet Sumner (14:10):
Where are you based right now?
Michelle Connolly (14:12):
Oh yeah, of course.
So we're based in Klateliteneterritory, so it's in north
central BC.
Kaya Adleman (14:31):
No-transcript um, and you guys do, in addition to
forestry work, you doconservation stuff across all um
, all kinds of fields and areas,right?
Michelle Connolly (14:47):
uh, we most definitely do not do forestry
work um our our work is basedaround essentially resisting
forestry and primary forests.
Yeah, so I can talk aboutconservation, or so.
So we're a volunteer collectivecomprising academics, resource
professionals, first Nations,forest industry workers, artists
and the general publicconcerned with wildlife and
(15:10):
biodiversity loss in northcentral BC.
We recognize that communitiesof native species and their
habitats have the right tocoexist with humans, and we
promote habitat protection byemploying both kind of science
and advocacy to changegovernment policies on on land
(15:31):
management.
So I would describe us as anecocentric or a biocentric group
.
So we think that primaryforests ought to be protected
for their own sake.
So our main motivation forstarting is that you know, all
of us knew, we were aware thatglobal wildlife populations have
dropped precipitously in thelast 50 years.
(15:55):
I think that you know there wasa study that came out that said
that they've dropped 60% since1970.
Canadian mammal populationshave dropped by over 40%.
The province of BC hasthousands of species at risk and
we're in an era of biologicalannihilation is how the Living
Planet Report from 2018described it.
(16:17):
Biologists tell me thateverything we're bothering to
measure is in decline, and thereason for this is habitat loss,
and the most obvious habitatloss in our region is of natural
forest.
So a natural or a primaryforest is one that's never been
logged.
So our work is about resistingforestry, ie logging and road
(16:42):
building in natural forests, inprimary forests, for the
protection of remainingbiodiversity.
So I think according to thelatest kind of global analysis
on primary forests, about 80%has been degraded through roads
and logging, so that means thatabout 20% of Earth's forest
(17:03):
cover has never beenindustrialized.
Some of that is in BC.
The intensive forest managementsimplifies natural forest
ecosystems in a big way and werealized that that's what we
should be focusing on here if weactually want to protect
wildlife, protect other lifeforms.
So we've spent the better partof six years doing public
(17:29):
outreach and we hear fromretired logging contractors,
foresters, sometimes truckloggers, hunters, trappers,
anglers that are very unhappywith the rate and scale of
industrial logging of our lastprimary forests, and over that
time we've interacted withprobably thousands of people
(17:52):
opposed to logging the remainingnatural forests, which is
really interesting consideringwhere we are.
Even in northern BC, where oureconomy has revolved around the
production of forest products,there's very little social
license to log the remaining oldgrowth but also other forms of
(18:14):
primary forest, either forreally high value products or
pellets, which is, of course, anemerging problem.
One of the things thattriggered us forming our group
is that we had the opinion thatbig environmental groups were
far too moderate.
(18:34):
They focus on what'spolitically achievable as
opposed to what nature actuallyneeds, which is to stop being
annihilated.
And so we formed the group sothat we could say what we wanted
to say anytime.
So we're all volunteers andthis is a labor of love.
(18:56):
It's a vocation for most of us.
Janet Sumner (19:01):
Wow, I love that history.
One of the things that I thinkis also important is, while you
might be saying some of the moreradical things are the things
that need to be said, the workof Conservation North, at least,
seems to me to be deeplygrounded in data and information
(19:22):
and good science.
So it's not what some peoplemight think is that the more
radical groups don't have aconnection to the natural, to
the sciences, and so that's notat all what Conservation North
is.
I've seen some amazing workcoming out of you, and the thing
that I was most attracted towhat I discovered we were doing
(19:45):
the logging scars report here inOntario and I was trying to
find out if anybody had donesomething similar or had looked
at that kind of informationacross Canada, and I found the
maps that Conservation North haddone, and then I think that was
the first time I contacted you,because I was really blown away
by those.
Can you maybe just talk aboutthat mapping of cumulative
(20:07):
footprint?
Michelle Connolly (20:09):
Yes, of course.
So we created the Seeing Redmap about a year after we
realized that it wasn't just oldgrowth forests that are at risk
in BC, it's actually all agesof natural forest or forest
that's never been logged.
So we wanted to betterunderstand what the areas were
(20:33):
that we wanted to protect, andto do that we had to map them
out.
So we enlisted the help of areally skilled GIS person and we
acquired the publicly availablelogging, cut blocks data from
the BC government, as well asroads data and basically all the
data that indicate kind of aconversion of an ecosystem, and
(20:58):
we pulled all that together,mapped it out and the negative
space is the area of naturalforests.
So it's an interactive map thatusers can zoom in and out of.
You can go to an area thatyou're interested in and see
what the state of naturalforests is.
There you can see where thenatural forests are, forests is
there.
(21:18):
You can see whether you knowwhere the natural forests are
and where the logging impactshave happened.
We meant it to be a tool thatcommunity groups like ours can
use to figure out what areasthey need to defend if they want
to defend them.
So it is a very black and whiteimage of forests in BC, but to
(21:41):
us it enables us to know wherethe most valuable places are on
the landscape to protect.
Janet Sumner (21:51):
In terms of the data, and this is just something
that I'm deeply interested in,because one of the things that
we found with logging scars whenwe did it, there was a section
we were doing which was groundtruthing, which meant Trevor was
going out and you know dronefootage etc.
And the resolution that we wereable to get to was a 40
centimeter resolution, so wewere able to see some of the
logging roads, etc.
(22:11):
Whereas if we just used thegovernment data, that was going
to give us a 30 meter resolution.
So have you had any of thatkind of challenge, shall I say,
in a BC context, or what kind ofdata sets are you using that
allow you to see the forest?
Michelle Connolly (22:28):
Yes, so it's all been the publicly available
data that's on the DataBCcatalog.
So in terms of the details ofthe quality of the data, we just
accepted that we had that datato work with and that was the
most straightforward way to mapit.
I'm sure there are issues withkind of the scale and resolution
(22:52):
of the roads data, but weworked with what was available
to us and it ended up beingquite an effective way to
communicate the cumulativefootprint of industrial
development across the province.
I want to say one thing aboutyour comment, janet, on being a
science-based group.
We are, and that's just becausesome of us have backgrounds in
(23:15):
the natural sciences.
We've been lucky enough to goto school and learn what it's
about.
Backgrounds in the naturalsciences.
We've been lucky enough to, youknow, go to school and learn
what it's about.
But at the same time we reallysee science as just one way of
kind of understanding how theworld works, and so we
understand its limitations aswell and we certainly don't want
to elevate it as really theonly way of understanding things
(23:36):
.
But you're right that it'sreally.
It's really enabled us to kindof interpret the information
that comes out of ecology and touse that to kind of further our
campaign work to protectnatural forests.
So you know, some of us areeducated in the sciences, but I
definitely wouldn't describe nothaving that as being a
(23:59):
limitation for any groups thatwant to, you know, pursue local
protection of their forests.
In fact, I think a lot of thelanguage you know from forestry
and ecology can be kind oftechnocratic, and one of the
things that we've tried to avoidis preventing the emotion in
all of it.
So I guess we try to strike abalance between using science to
(24:24):
inform our work but also notsquishing out all the feelings
and emotions out of what we do,because of course that's a
really important driver issimply our love for natural wild
places.
Janet Sumner (24:40):
Yeah, absolutely A hundred percent.
I think it's the people who arethe best advocates for the
people, who know the land and,whether that's indigenous or
local communities, who actuallylive and breathe that land.
It's really important to behaving that conversation and
have them driving the outcomesand what they want to see.
But I do like the ConservationNorth work that you've been able
(25:02):
to publish because I think whenyou're trying to have that
dialogue with the structures ofpower, you need to have the
tools to be able to challengeconceptions and sort of present
alternate views.
And I've also been reallypleased to see the rise of
Indigenous knowledge and we dida great set of interviews with
(25:24):
David Flood, who's an Indigenousregistered professional
forester.
He just brings those twoworldviews together.
It's quite fantastic.
Kaya Adleman (25:33):
Hey, are you liking the clear cut as much as
we like making it?
Your donation helps us bringmore of these important stories
to life.
You can actually support ourwork by going to our website,
wwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut, or you canclick the link in the episode
(25:54):
description below.
Your support means the world tous.
In the episode descriptionbelow your support means the
world to us.
I really love the mapping workthat Conservation North has put
out as well, and I'm curiousabout the response that those
publications have received andhow that tool has been used to
further the conservation workthat you guys are doing.
Michelle Connolly (26:16):
Yes.
So I mean it was a veryshocking thing for people to
realize that industrial forestryhad had such an impact on our
landscapes.
We got a very positive responsefrom many people saying, well,
no one's ever done this before,and so we're, as far as I know,
(26:38):
the only group in BC thatactually talks about primary
forests as a thing.
I would love to be wrong, butI'm fairly sure that we are the
only group that actuallyacknowledges that natural
forests of all ages are just asimportant as old growth.
Obviously, old growth isparticularly rare and vulnerable
because the, you know, becausethe best lumber comes from them,
(27:01):
but with the you get a sensethat some people are just refers
to the age of the trees.
(27:41):
The concept of primary forestpulls in ethics a little bit.
So primary forests are foreststhat have never been
industrially managed.
A lot of people wrapped up in,you know, the industrial
forestry complex really seeforests, natural forests as
(28:02):
either, you know, unmanaged orabout to be managed.
My experience interacting withprofessional foresters here is
that all primary forests aredestined to be managed, that
they ought to be managed, thatthey should be managed and can
(28:24):
be managed and we can controlthe outcomes.
So that's very much, uh, thebelief system of professional
forestry and um in in term, inyou know, from my perspective,
in my experience.
So people are offended when yougo.
Actually, these places arenatural and they ought to stay
natural.
(28:45):
Professional forestry is aboutmanaging, it's about controlling
and and we believe that theseplaces should be free of human
management and control andthat's an offensive thing to a
lot of people, wrapped up inkind of professional forestry
belief systems.
(29:05):
So we did get some negativeresponses to our map and it
would have come from a place ofbeing offended by the fact that
we're suggesting that someplaces ought to remain free of
quote management, which, ofcourse, is really just a
euphemism for, you know, machineassisted industrial logging,
(29:28):
right.
Kaya Adleman (29:30):
Yeah, it's a very anthropocentric mindset, like
very much placing humans firstas opposed to looking at the
ecosystems of the forests as awhole of my favorite papers was
(29:55):
written by is by Holling andMephi.
Michelle Connolly (29:57):
So CS Holling , or Buzz Holling, was an
ecologist from BC and he talkedabout command and control and
the pathology of naturalresource management.
And it's all about how commandand control management usually
results in unforeseenconsequences for both natural
(30:18):
ecosystems and human welfare inthe form of ecological collapse
and social and economic strife.
Man in control are suppressionof fire and fire prone forests,
the conversion of primaryforests to production forests or
plantations, the use ofherbicides to kill anything that
(30:40):
isn't a conifer, mechanicalsite preparation where you try
and change like a wetland into aplace where you can grow trees.
So when you simplify complexsystems, they lose their ability
to bounce back fromperturbations, and what they
described is essentially like abelief system that humans can or
(31:00):
capable of imposing our ownwill on nature and then it'll
somehow magically do what wewant it to do.
And they point out the problemswith that.
So whenever I get the chance, Ibring up that idea that the
pathological need to command andcontrol nature is actually
what's leading to ourannihilating of other forms of
(31:23):
life.
Janet Sumner (31:25):
Is underlying this ?
The belief system that if wemanage these ecosystems that we
can get our desired results.
These ecosystems, that we canget our desired results.
And I don't just mean likethere's some belief out there
that we can manage and actuallykeep caribou on the landscape.
And there is some belief systemout there that if we just get
(31:50):
in there and we cut those oldtrees before they catch fire you
know, there's these kinds ofthought processes and a lot of
times they're done as anexperiment we don't actually
have any science or any proofthat those assertions are true.
Kaya Adleman (32:06):
That's a limitation of science.
Janet Sumner (32:08):
Sorry, so absolutely it is Kaya.
And so I'm just wondering.
Like we seem to be going alongwith this grand experiment that
started and we adjusted.
Every once in a while wechanged some of the regulations
or the guidance or whatever, butreally underlying it all is
some grander myth that weactually do control the outcomes
(32:31):
and have certainty over them docontrol the outcomes and have
certainty over them.
Michelle Connolly (32:43):
Yes, and I have a lot of thoughts on that.
It's absolutely been a massiveexperiment and that's why we're
calling for a stoppage of thisexperiment.
We need to take a precautionaryapproach at this point in time,
and that's why our group pointsout that the only real reason
oh sorry, the only real way toprotect wildlife and other life
(33:06):
forms is actually to makenatural forests off limits to
industrial logging, simplybecause we don't know how they
work.
We don't understand theircomplexity, their self-willed,
self-managing, self-replacingsystems, and we need to leave
the ones we have left well alone, exposed to these arguments
(33:38):
about how, because the climateis changing, we need to double
down on our management, andthat's the totally predictable
response of this whole machine,and the antidote to that is we
ought to zone out places wherewe absolutely can't go.
We need to basically show somediscipline and some humility at
our own lack of knowledge abouthow mother nature works.
(34:02):
Of course, the forestryindustrial complex always has
the answer, and their solutionto everything is always just to
log and replant right.
There's basically two tools inthat toolbox and our perspective
is no, please continue tomanage what we've already
previously industrialized.
(34:23):
Those are the places ofopportunity that we might be
able to improve what we're doing.
Bc is, you know, most of ourlandscapes now, most of our
productive forests are gone.
See, is, you know, most of ourlandscapes now, most of our
productive forests are gone.
Those, those are areas ofopportunity for quote management
, for doing these experiments.
But we really think that thetime for experimenting in
(34:45):
natural ecosystems uh, in in thesense, ie logging and then
pretending we don't understandthe consequences of that, the
the era for that should be over,and that's why we're saying no,
we actually need to justcompletely step back from areas
that have never beenindustrially quote managed.
Janet Sumner (35:05):
Yeah, wildlands has suggested something similar
in Ontario and in a few placesactually that the idea is, if
the contention is forestry issustainable, then sustain it on
the existing footprint.
Michelle Connolly (35:21):
Yeah, that's a brilliant way to word it.
Janet Sumner (35:24):
Yeah, and then stay out of the areas that have
yet to be touched, and once youcan prove that you've actually
been able to do that, then wemight have another conversation.
But at this juncture in time,especially with the collapse of
nature and being on the verge ofthe sixth mass extinction, we
need to be thinking aboutstaying out of these intact
(35:44):
areas, not only for nature'ssake, but also because they're
going to be our climateresilience.
I mean, they are the placesthat are going to absorb carbon
for us.
Michelle Connolly (35:53):
Yes, absolutely, they are the places
that are going to absorb carbon.
For us, yes, absolutely.
And you know, because a lot ofthese people just can't help
themselves.
They're proposing quote, bettermanagement.
You know like, oh yes, werealize industrial clear-cutting
was bad, so let's just dobetter logging, and that's not
going to help.
So let's just do better loggingand that's not going to help.
(36:14):
We don't have much faith orconfidence in the ability of the
people coming out of the systemto, quote better manage forests
.
So alternative forms ofharvesting, partial cutting,
ecosystem-based management donot cut it, so to speak.
Management, do not cut it, soto speak.
(36:40):
We think those things belong insecondary forests and not
primary forests.
So you're always going toencounter people that just want
to do better.
But it's really just anextension of this totally
uncontrolled experiment.
They want to be able tocontinue experimenting in
primary forests and for us, wesay no.
We say no, please do that inthe places that have already
been degraded.
Kaya Adleman (37:06):
Would you say that's the state of the forests
in BC right now?
Is that the underlying frame isto continue to harvest and say
that things are going to bebetter or that things are going
to be improved?
Michelle Connolly (37:21):
Yes.
So people invested inindustrial forestry are putting
forth the idea that we cansomehow improve these things by
just logging natural forestsbetter, and we we heartily
disagree.
We've seen this experiment playout, you know our whole lives,
and it's failing.
Mountain caribou populationsare tanking.
(37:43):
Fisher and our red listedNorthern goshawk is in trouble.
Bull trout are in trouble.
All the signs are pointing tono.
Humans are actually failing atquote managing forests, and so
we actually need to step backright now if we're serious about
protecting biodiversity.
(38:03):
So the bc government has hasmade the, you know, stated that
they want to, uh, prioritizebiodiversity and ecosystem
health is how they put it.
So back in 2020, the BCgovernment sent two foresters
(38:24):
around BC to collect informationabout what the general public
wanted to see when it comes toold growth, and they turned that
into a report and that's turnedinto kind of a high level
priority to do a quote paradigmshift.
That's how the BC governmentdescribes it and out of that,
they have started an initiativeto prioritize biodiversity and
(38:48):
ecosystem health.
(39:12):
No-transcript, that's right.
That was the old growthstrategic review report, yeah,
and we have a lot of criticismsabout it and which I'm happy to
to talk about.
You know one.
It, it's, it's.
It's not a perfect report.
There are some really goodthings about it, but there are
(39:33):
also big warning flags thatactually strongly hinted about,
strongly hinted at what we'reseeing now, which is, you know,
mentions of logging in parks todeal with agents that are
against forest health.
You know, any appearances ofthe word forest health are a
massive red flag to a group likeours that's focused on
(39:56):
protecting natural processes andnatural forests.
The reports peppered with theidea that, you know, insect
disturbances and fire are amassive disaster that we have to
deal with by logging.
So there were some really bigred flags for us in that report
and what we're seeing now.
(40:17):
You know we've been prettyvocal about the problems with
that report and the fact that wehad to be really vigilant about
the kinds of things it said,and now we're seeing the results
of that.
The BC government is usingnatural disturbances to argue
for more logging and that reallyit really betrays the fact that
they have no idea how naturalforest ecosystems actually work
(40:41):
and the value, in creatinglandscape heterogeneity, of all
these different disturbancesthat happen.
You know, like old growth,natural forests are like a big
pod of boiling water.
Forests get old and then theydie and you get all these
different ages across thedifferent landscapes.
(41:01):
That's how natural forestsdevelop.
Somehow we came to a situationand we were part of the problem
too, because we were onlyfocused on old growth forests
for quite a while.
We were, you know, we wethought maybe that protecting
only the oldest age classes ofnatural forests would somehow
protect wildlife habitat, and ofcourse we were wrong.
(41:25):
Forests exist in different ages.
They, you know, they havedisturbances like a severe fire
or a severe you know defoliationor a spruce beetle outbreak,
and then they are technicallyyoung and then they regenerate
again and become old, and youneed to leave opportunities for
all of that to happen if youwant to keep your biodiversity
on the landscape.
But unfortunately, most of theactivism in BC and of course,
(41:50):
like I said, I was part of thistoo, like I said, I was part of
this too only ever focused onthat one age class of natural
forest.
And we realized, you know, withthe coming out of that report,
with the pellet industry and thefact that the government was
enabling, for example, loggingin post-wildfire natural forests
(42:12):
in forests that were consideredlower value because they're not
quite old growth, say themature forests or younger, we
realized, like, actually we'releaving big parts of the
landscape vulnerable by notpointing out why all ages of
primary forest are important,not just the oldest age classes.
And of course, if you'reprogressively logging younger
(42:35):
age classes of natural forest,you're using that, you're losing
that potential for naturallyregenerated old growth.
So the trajectory is just thatwe one day will just not have
any old growth left, because,you know, things happen and in
our, in our local forests here,which are, you know, used to be
(42:56):
spruce dominated, they're stillspruce dominated.
We have old growth spruceforests.
The disturbance that inevitablyhappens in them is a spruce
beetle outbreak.
That is how those forestsregenerate.
Um, but uh, but we've beennuking them like there's no
(43:23):
tomorrow, because we just a fewyears ago had, uh, you know, an
increase in the population ofspruce beetles, which is, of
course, a native insect.
It's part of our nativebiodiversity and um and logging
targeted those forests,exaggerating how, what
proportion was dead.
But of course, even if it wasall dead which is impossible,
that never happens those forestswould still have lots of value
ecologically and of course,that's the mountain caribou
habitat right there.
So we've been steadilydestroying those, those old
(43:47):
forests that have beenexperiencing natural processes
like beetle disturbances andannihilating them, annihilating
the complexity and the structurethat wildlife need, and now
we're wondering why we're havingproblems with wildlife
populations.
Janet Sumner (44:12):
So one of the things that Michelle says that I
really enjoyed is that shesuggests that we've got to stop
this massive experiment.
It removes a lot of ingredientsand then tries to regrow trees,
(44:38):
but it doesn't necessarilyregrow that full complexity of,
and richness of, species, and soshe suggests that we need to
take this precautionary approach, certainly at this time when
we've got, you know, the sixmass extinction on the horizon
and and all of these speciesthat are going extinct, and that
BC is a hotbed of endangeredspecies.
(45:02):
And if we're going to make thiswork, we actually have to leave
the natural forests alone andnot allow industrial logging to
keep expanding into all of theseforests, because we just don't
understand the complexity in aforest, and I like the term that
she used.
She calls them a self-willedecosystem.
It's managing self-replacingsystems and we need to leave
(45:27):
these alone, and the way it wasexplained to me way back when I
started at Wildlands League wasthat evolution is the driving
force of change.
To me way back when I startedat wildlands league was that
evolution is the driving forceof change, and so I like her
term about these are self-willedsystems, that they are.
All different kinds of elementsare being driven in the forest
by the forest.
Yeah, it's fantastic.
Kaya Adleman (45:46):
Yeah, that's, that was my main takeaway from this
as well, and I guess, maybe toadd onto that, that the
government policy is really outof step with these ideas and the
knowledge that we hold abouthow ecosystems actually function
and how forest ecosystemsfunction, and that provincial
(46:07):
governments, essentially, arestill treating forests as
something to be managed whichwe've talked about a lot on this
podcast and that the fact thatwe have to manage these forests
because of these naturaldisturbances is just kind of an
excuse to make arguments formore logging.
Fires and pest outbreaks arenatural management tools.
(46:31):
And then there's also this ideathat she talks about natural
management tools.
And then there's also this ideathat she talks about or she
uses the term natural forest tode-center old growth, because
these natural disturbances thatthe governments are trying to
manage for kind of drive whatyou said, janet are these like
self-replacing systems, and thatus continuously putting our
(46:53):
fingers into the pot kind ofjust makes everything worse.
And I guess another way to frameit is well, I was actually
first introduced to Michellewhen I started at Wildlands and
I saw her give a presentationand she was saying you know, we
can't control fires, we can'tcontrol pest outbreaks that
(47:15):
impact our forests?
Why not?
Why don't we focus on the onething that we do have absolute
control over, which is thecontrol we have on our
industrial impacts andindustrial disturbances to the
forest?
Really like that way to thinkabout the kind of intricate and
(47:38):
dynamic systems of the forestand how we treat them as humans.
Janet Sumner (47:42):
Yeah, I think that this is exactly where I'm
thinking we need to go as well.
Is that, in the face of climatechange, giving forests more
ability and more space to adaptand change and respond to
climate change, rather thantrying to get in there and log
the heck out of them as asolution to climate change?
(48:03):
So I'm very interested in thisnext section that we're going to
talk to Michelle.
She's going to unpack even moreand she'll talk about the
biomass link a lot more and howher report has traced that.
So I look forward to nextweek's conversation with you,
kaya.
Kaya Adleman (48:19):
Yeah, me too Looking forward to it.
Janet Sumner (48:24):
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.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.
Kaya Adleman (48:35):
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 (48:56):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram,
twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.
Kaya Adleman (49:03):
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.