Resolute Forest Products Hires Trump Lawyers to Silence Critics

Hi all.  This is the first time that I've decided to start a thread in the Cider Press.  If there is another forum that this can be posted in, then please move it to where more people will be able to see it, since I feel it is a very big deal.  There is a letter to sign, if you are so inclined.

Resolute Forest Products is a massive company who are absolutely raping the boreal forest that spans Northern Canada (which has sparse populations and so very little notice of their practices).  Resolute is attempting to bully Stand.Earth (formerly Forest Ethics), and Greenpeace, and drain their finances and time by suing them and individuals by using a law that is supposed to be for combating Organized Crime.  

Perhaps more important than the complete lack of basis for this particular case, it sets a dangerous precedent by challenging the First Amendment of the United States and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Our Free Speech Is Super Important, as is Our Ability to Hold Corporations Responsible for Destructive Practices.

Anyway, if this interests you, check this out for a bit more info and a place to add your voice.  Thanks.

!!!Stand with Stand!!!!

Here's a quote from the Stand media release:

The primary purpose of Resolute’s legal action is to silence us. Complex litigation can be overwhelming, diverting staff time and resources that should be devoted to our mission and our work. Which is exactly what Resolute wants. But far more ominous and concerning is that if Resolute continues with this lawsuit, it will open the door for other companies to try to muzzle and intimidate their critics through spurious lawsuits designed specifically to intimidate and shut down their critics. But if this lawsuit is dismissed, it sends a strong signal that these types of aggressive tactics won’t work.

Here is another quote on the intimidation actions taken by Resolute in advance of creating this 'criminal case' :

In late May, shadowy private investigators started showing up at the homes of former Stand.earth employees, frightening them and their families by parking in front of their houses for days at a time and asking questions while refusing to explain themselves.

The stories of these intimidating experiences started to multiply – we heard from staff as far flung as the Southeast US to Canada’s West Coast. And then we learned why: the largest logging company in Canada, Resolute Forest Products, was filing a lawsuit against Stand.earth and Greenpeace. And not just our organizations, but individual staff members, including myself. Why would you sue non-profit employees? They’re not known for being flush with money. Nor is Stand.earth. You do it as an attempt to intimidate and bully.  And that should come as no surprise, as we now understand the Resolute’s law firm is the same one President-elect Donald Trump is using to threaten to sue The New York Times for releasing his tax information.

 

Interesting how folks jump on the anti Trump bandwagon , twisting words to further their cause.

Trump does not own the law firm. Trump needed a lawyer and hired a firm.

Just so happens to be the same firm used in this case.

Trump has nothing to do with it!

Now if we look at the case without all of that trickery, I would be against the intimidation and harassment,( which also had nothing to do with the law firm involved.) but it is this sort of stuff that makes me less likely to support those who I should be supporting.

By the way I did not vote for trump.

I guess the subject could have said "Trump's Lawyers" instead of "Trump Lawyers", but I doubt whether it would make a difference to your valid point.  I used the headline as the subject because it sounded better than what I had originally written, and I did want to get people's attention to this important cause.  Trump is one of the biggest trending things on the web, but that's not a great excuse.  Thanks for your input, Miles.  I appreciate you checking the thread out.

Perhaps the people at Stand chose this headline in the first place because of the obvious parallel between Trump's bullying and intimidation practices, and those used against these groups and individuals by Resolute, both of which are being defended and pushed via this same Law firm.  Yes, it's convoluted emotional thinking, but it is actually accurate.  

Trump has nothing directly to do with it, you are right, but it is the attitude of his ilk that are responsible for this situation, and I really have no problem using Trump's notorious anti personality to get at Richard Garneau.  Who, on Permies has ever heard of Richard Garneau?

It's a headline.  Nothing more.  And like a headline, it get's people to read a story.  The meat of the story tells the truth that you are looking for, Miles; how you choose to act and react to anything is... your choice.  I hope that you choose to support the things that you should be supporting, no matter how it's presented.  Thanks again for checking it out.    

I'd have to agree with Miles here. Trump had nothing to do with it. I'd hate to think that I could be judged by the actions of a lawyer(s) I hired in the past.

In order to see the whole picture, I would have to hear from both camps. I don't have enough information yet.

You say that Resolute Forest Products: "are absolutely raping the boreal forest", "are attempting to bully Stand.Earth and Greenpeace...by suing them...using a law..."

I'd have to ask, since I've never been there, are they doing something different in their forest management that now is seen as "raping"? Or have you always seen it as such? They have operated their business in that region since 1816. Their website outlines their practice of reforestation and sustainability. View it here. I know websites can paint a whole different picture. Are they trying to fool me?

Is it the lawsuit or the law mentioned that is an issue? Both?

You claim that there's a "complete lack of basis for this particular case".

Lawsuits can be costly to both sides, considering time and money. The only ones who really win are lawyers. Why would a company spend time or money if they can't possibly prove basis exists? What are they suing for? Libel, slander, trespassing, hindering business operations?

Stand says: "The primary purpose of Resolute's legal action is to silence us",
                     "...parking in front of their houses... and asking questions"

If a company puts the time and money into a lawsuit for the purpose of "silencing", I'd have to ask what has been said, to whom and where is the proof to your claims? We all have critics. I know, when I was a business owner, the critics and competitors were ruthless. This was mainly because they were making claims without complete facts.
Parking and asking questions is not illegal and I think there'd have to be more to it in order to call that illegal.

In this instance, I feel I would need all the facts. If this goes before a judge, he will (hopefully) hear the facts and be able to make decisions on those facts, regardless of the lawyers, the lawyers' past clients,etc.

I'm not taking sides here. I've only been presented one side. Stand.earth, I had never heard of until today. Greenpeace has been around a long time. I'd have to say their hearts are in the right place most of the time, but they go about their business, IMO, in questionable ways sometimes. Resolute is just another in a long list of companies that enable me to write letters, send cards, read tangible books, wipe my butt, choose paper bags over plastic ones, display art.......so as a consumer, I can't be hypercritical.

Thanks for your response Karen.  I do not have answers to all of your questions, but I do have some, and my perspective for you to contemplate in the hopes that you might understand.  

I know websites can paint a whole different picture. Are they trying to fool me?

  I too have been to resolute's web page and it is good.  To answer your question... yes.  It is in their interest to paint the most lovely picture of what they are doing (fool you) in order to continue with the status quo, which is to make massive profits at the expense of the environment, and the future of the myriad communities who would be supported by that environment.  

Resolute is just another in a long list of companies that enable me to write letters, send cards, read tangible books, wipe my butt, choose paper bags over plastic ones, display art.......so as a consumer, I can't be hypercritical.

 Our paper products do not have to come from clear cutting boreal or other temperate old growth forests. There are alternatives that a company could explore if they were inclined to get out of destructive mega logging, and focused on sustainable paper production: hemp being the primary candidate.  Besides that, much more sustainable forest practices exist, and can be certified as such. Tagari press which puts out the Permaculture books of Bill Mollison is an example of a publisher who chooses only to get paper from certified sources.  

Their website outlines their practice of reforestation and sustainability.

A tree seedling planted, is not a forest giant, and a industrialized tree farm landscape is not the forest destroyed in the process of extracting the timber.  If you grew up where I did (the North Coastal Rainforest in a logging town), your perspective might be different.  For my entire life, I've seen expansive valleys laid completely to waste by companies much smaller than this; I've planted trees in the blistering dry heat while the cool moist forest sits just to the side, or miles away.  The devastation is incalculable.  If you have not been there, you may not be even able to imagine it. While I support efforts to reforest, the actual forest company and government plan is not to create forests (diverse ecosystems) but tree farms on (relatively speaking) short term rotations.    

I'd have to agree with Miles here. Trump had nothing to do with it. I'd hate to think that I could be judged by the actions of a lawyer(s) I hired in the past.  

 Yes, when you put it that way, I can understand your point of view, but being guilty by association is part of this global world, and nobody is immune to that, especially if you act on a large scale.  Trumps tactics and his use of a law firm and that law firms ethics to take on such predatory cases makes them more liable to be focused on and used as such, then someone like yourself, or myself.  It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make me feel amazing about doing it, so I feel that your are quite right to point it out, and I appreciate being called on it, but I'm not going to take it back, partly because I don't know how to retract it and partly because it made you look, and partly that's the point of using such a catch headline, right or wrong.  I hope that that doesn't offend you enough to get past that small indiscretion in relation to the greater issues at hand--please see the closing paragraph of this post.

Is it the lawsuit or the law mentioned that is an issue? Both?

The law was meant to prosecute those involved in organized crime, and in that sense, in this case, it is preposterous, ridiculous, and the company and it's lawyers should be held accountable for defamation of character.  The lawsuit itself, if judge poorly by the system, would prove a devastating blow to those voices who are trying to criticize or otherwise point out the wrongs done by powerful interests on this continent; the precedent this could set would be catastrophic for civil society.  The fact that the parameters of the law allow for such extractive and exploitive practices in the first place should be viewed as organized crime, not the pointing out of such crimes.

Lawsuits can be costly to both sides, considering time and money. The only ones who really win are lawyers. Why would a company spend time or money if they can't possibly prove basis exists? What are they suing for? Libel, slander, trespassing, hindering business operations?

You might be able to believe that  the largest logging corporation in Canada has very deep pockets, and an assigned budget for such things; they stand to win greatly by being able to continue as they are.  In the case of Forest Ethics, who run on donations... the comparison is laughable.  I haven't found the lawsuit, but I imagine hindering business operations, or... what they view as slander but is actually someone/some group exposing the truth about what they are doing.

If this goes before a judge, he will (hopefully) hear the facts and be able to make decisions on those facts, regardless of the lawyers, the lawyers' past clients,etc.

 I agree that in this case Trump should have nothing to do with it, and I would hope that the Judge would have enough sense to view the case as bullshit in the first case, and in the second case view it in the light of laws greater than corporate law which legalizes criminal capitalism for the sake of a so called (tragically misnamed) economy.

You say that Resolute Forest Products: "are absolutely raping the boreal forest", "are attempting to bully Stand.Earth and Greenpeace...by suing them...using a law..."

I'd have to ask, since I've never been there, are they doing something different in their forest management that now is seen as "raping"? Or have you always seen it as such? They have operated their business in that region since 1816

 Have you ever seen modern industrial logging?  In 1816 it was axes and handsaws, and horses, and Resolute was a small company.  Now it's Feller Bunchers, Processors, and/or other giant machines working alongside fallers with large powerful chainsaws, and fleets of logging trucks and processing plants.  The cutting of forests in Canada has increased at an exponential rate since the dawn of industrial scale logging, and is currently threatening 1/2 of the bird species on this continent.  While I understand your criticism of Greenpeace, and I have had similar views in the past and still hold some and have been watching them since I was a kid in the 70's, I have been involved in and supporting Forest Ethics which became Stand.earth, for more than 5 years, and not once did I feel that way about their methods and ideals.  

In order to see the whole picture, I would have to hear from both camps. I don't have enough information yet.

 I can appreciate that.

I can understand the use of Trump in this case as being a bit thin, but when you consider the list of over 75 organizations who are backing Stand with that advertisement in the New York Times, you might gain the perspective that many very passionate and amazing people who are dedicating their lives to their various causes of environmentalism and civil libertarianism, have been willing to overlook this to throw their support behind this petition to get this case rightfully dropped.

I really do appreciate you taking the time to look into this, Karen.  

Thank you, Roberto. As always, it's great to have deep, meaningful and friendly debate with a person of your intelligence. Well done. I say, stand firm in your beliefs and be true to your values and morals. I hope this turns out well for the whole of humanity. I'll keep following along.

Although there are quantitative aspects to all environmental conundrums that make discussion of the pros and cons quite complex, I tend to side with Derrick Jensen's view regarding advocates for different sides of a conflict.  Very often it comes down to an organization or collective of environmentalists against one or more corporations or government entities.  When it's time to start sharpening the legal weaponry for such a challenge, as in the Canadian timber example described here, the laws simply fall short in protecting (a) those creatures with no voice and no recognition in the courtroom, (b) those humans who possess limited financial resources to partake fairly in the litigation, (c) those humans who would have a say and protection under the law, but have not yet been born, and (d) those human and non-human creatures who live outside of the jurisdiction where the laws are valid, but whom will be impacted by secondary effects of environmental destruction.  A fundamentally similar conflict clearly is playing out with the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, a structure that quite probably could have been routed so as not to cross the Missouri River (except at the transfer station origination points, and then perhaps not even then).  In both cases, rather than take a compromising approach to solve the problem, a 'gamble' is taken which disrespects the people and the environment who will be impacted the greatest, with the hope of gaining the greatest profit from the endeavor.

Karen,

It is an honor to be intelligently challenged to defend my position (or the position I support); it only strengthens my resolve and keeps my thinking on course.  I also really appreciate you and Miles jumping on the Trump half truth.  It makes me smile that I am being challenged to do better with how I present myself and my views.  That is one of the great things about this site: the quality people involved.  Blessings.

John W, thank you for posting your perspective.  I think it stands alone without further comment about it, except this:  In Canada, we have our own pipeline issues, including one which is set to pass near my land, called Kinder Morgan (Morgan being of the J.P. Morgan family of business).  The pipeline already exists but the company plan is to twin it with a larger volume pipe which will put 5 times as much tanker traffic on B.C.'s Southern Coast, threatening the already maxed out biome around Vancouver/Seattle/Victoria, including resident orcas.  Up here where I can drink the Fraser River, the pipeline is already going beside this river, after having been beside the Athabasca River, through Jasper National Park, and Mount Robson Provincial Park, before heading into the Robson Valley, where I live, and proceeding over the watershed boundary of the North Columbia River basin and into the North Thompson river watershed, following it to where it joins as part of the Fraser again, and on down to the coast crossing thousands of smaller rivers, creeks, streams, swamps, and other waterways.  But that, sadly, is another issue that I don't have nearly enough time for.  

I have seen logging operations stop in a number of areas over the years and communities that depend on this renewable resource take a economic hit.
Having lived in the frozen north I know that the northern forests do not have anywhere near the biodiversity of the tropical forests.
So there are a number of factors in this discussion that are not raised.

There are always two sides to a argument.

This does not mean that in this case I believe one side or the other. I have too few hard facts to make a rational opinion.


It is clear that the subject line was created to attract a liberal audience who is more likely to be anit-logging.
This tactic is used often and can be very effective because it appeals to ones emotions.
Unfortunately, in USA at this time society is becoming balkenized.
We are seeing similar things happening in the EU areas.

Expect to see more of this we versus them in the next few years.
Rational thought will be replaced with raw emotions!

I have seen logging operations stop in a number of areas over the years and communities that depend on this renewable resource take a economic hit.  

In my experience living in logging towns for most of my life (I'm nearing 50), the thing that closes down logging is improperly managed forest practices, policies, and cut and run corporations.  Point in case, Mcbride, and Valemount, in my current valley had multiple thriving mid sized mills, and the provincial government deemed it somehow appropriate to create laws that favored larger corporations doing all of the logging and milling, and as a result, the local mills were forced to either close, or sell their operations to the large mill companies.  The further result of those that sold their operations, were closed door meetings that shut out the locals and closed the mills anyway.  All the logs in this valley, but a very scant few to mom-and-pop operations, or smaller mills, are trucked to Prince George or Kamloops-hundreds of miles to either.  That is what is what shut down these mills.  

I have too few hard facts to make a rational opinion.  

 All I have is hard facts. I've seen it all first hand, too often, and it's in my face everyday on the highway with trucks going to the big mills.

In my home town of Terrace, there were three huge mills operating when I was a kid.  Again due to both government and corporate mismanagement of public lands/commodities, all of those mills have been shut down, the largest dramatically with closed door meetings.  In the case of that one mill it was dismantled by it's new Chinese owners and shipped off either to Siberia where greener horizons existed.   There are mills in Terrace now, but nothing like there was then. I saw it coming.  Most of the logging families and mill families didn't.  It had nothing to do with environmental activism though.  Nothing.   This is also partly due to the fact that we were also exporting raw logs, without even milling them.  When I was a kid, MacMillan Bloedel (which was later bought out by Weyerhaeuser of Washington state) completely gutted the Old Growth Cedar and Sitka Spruce of the Kitimat Valley, dumping a double-size-off-highway-only logging truck load of logs every minute, 24 hours a day into the salt water in Douglas Channel for a decade.  

The people are wising up to the greed of cut and run forestry.  As a result the media and the public are watching industry more closely and holding them and the government more accountable for everything they see.  The free for all is over, and the companies are going off to the hinterland where less eyes are watching, that is the other reason the mills are closing in the small and large towns.    

The good thing that has come of this is that the Valley communities have each formed Community Forests (thankfully due to proper legislation, finally!) which gives locals a lot more say into what is going on, and takes a sizeable chunk of the local forests/wood in trust to the local people, which means it all slows down.  I was part of the Community Forest group in Terrace, but it dismantled in frustration because this law did not yet exist. The amount of red tape when trying to do things outside of the corporate large scale industrial mindset is almost impossible to get through.  That is how it is set up, and for the most part it is still that way all over B.C..  I've seen it first hand all my life.

I know that the northern forests do not have anywhere near the biodiversity of the tropical forests.  

 To me, to be quite honest and not meant to offend you, this is a non-argument.  Who cares to compare the diversity levels... when 50% of North America's birds are threatened by such practices.  Why do we need to compare it to the Amazon or Indonesia.  Sure it's fracking crazy what is being done in the tropics, but that does not mean that we should ignore our own backyard.  It's a non-argument.  These sorts of statements are perpetrated by those with a bias towards industrial development of the North and are distractions from the atrocities that are being senselessly committed in the name of profit, and nothing else.  I've seen it all, and heard it shouted at meetings by people who knew deep down that they had been duped.   They admitted as much after the mills closed.

If these companies think they can go on like this, then they are about to hit a wall that they don't expect.  Look at what is happening at Standing Rock.  Or what happened at Occupy.  People have had enough. I'm really surprised there isn't more of it happening all over the U.S..    

http://www.borealbirds.org/announcements/carbon-world-forgot

Very informative website. Thanks for the link Ludi.

Yes, thank you Tyler.   !!  

I wanted to further address Alex Keenan's post

Expect to see more of this we versus them in the next few years.
Rational thought will be replaced with raw emotions!  

 In the case of Stand.earth, I find that Alex's statement does not reflect the situation with Stand.earth, who as a group tend to be quite level headed and rational, engaging their 'adversaries' as if they are potential collaborators throughout the process.

Here's is a quote from Todd Paglia Executive Director of Stand.earth

we go toe to toe challenging some of the world’s largest companies to do better, to stop destroying forests, to address climate change, to not put people and our planet at risk. This is never comfortable – not for us taking on companies that have more revenue in a few hours than we fundraise in a full year. And it’s not comfortable for the companies we take on – who often want to do the right thing but have simply not prioritized it. Over the years that approach -- moving major companies from conflict to collaboration -- has yielded extraordinary, long-lasting successes. We have been able to protect millions of acres of old growth forests, partner with indigenous people working to gain control over their traditional territories, and challenge and defeat outdated and dangerous fossil fuel projects.

Nearly every company we have ever challenged in a campaign has come to not only change its ways, but to appreciate that we helped them make better decisions for the environment, for people, and for their companies. Moving through conflict – a real adult disagreement – to eventual collaboration demands the best of us and of our temporary adversaries. But this summer, we learned that not everyone can handle agreeing to disagree while working toward our common values

This quote directly addresses the fact that Stand.earth does everything that it can to not divide people.  Part of the whole idea is a collaboration, so that mutual long term goals can be established which benefit all parties, especially so that those who have no voice can be impacted the least, as John Weiland so eloquently put.    

In addition to the above post, I wanted to thank Alex for joining in on this thread.  I always appreciate more discussion, as it allows me a further voice on these issues.

In regards to that, I would like to further comment on that post.

It is clear that the subject line was created to attract a liberal audience who is more likely to be anit-logging.  

 Perhaps that was the intent of Stand.earth in creating the headline, but my personal intention was to use their subject line which I figured would catch the eye and get people to look, nothing more.  

Further, I would say that I personally am not anti-logging.  I support community forests.  I support holistic forestry.  I support adding value to our timber supplies through manufacturing products instead of selling raw lumber or raw logs, and I presently own 4 chainsaws, and numerous other logging tools, and log on my own acreage in the best way that I know.  

To further comment on this small quote, in regards to this being a liberal audience only thread, I should say that this issue spans much greater divides than partisan politics and general statements regarding social divisiveness.  I am completely willing to engage in debate with Socialists, Fascists, Capitalists, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Anarchists, or whomever I feel is jeopardizing justice, community, and real economy, as opposed to the status quo of law and order and division which seems to be supporting the present organized thievery and debt that is called an economy and this so called social system, which seems to amount to a mostly unconscious form of Nihilism.  Nihilism, or every man for himself regardless of social or environmental consequences, is the root cause of what is wrong with most of the social systems running and ruining the planet.  This I will oppose in all of its iterations by supporting those who are most effected, no matter if it comes off as liberal or not.  

My own feeling on the matter is that there should be no more harvesting of virgin old-growth forest anywhere on Earth, period. It should be a criminal act. Our "economy" can be infinitely destructive if we let it -- it is only us who remedy situations like this: normal people who take the responsibility to see to it that some reasonable limits are put in place on how much natural capital we allow to be destroyed.

So I signed, and thanks very much Roberto for bringing the issue to our attention. And for your patience and willingness to grow and continuing commitment in the face of disagreement. And thanks also to the disagreeers for speaking their mind and also being willing to learn and grow.

This boreal forest mega-clear-cutting reminds me very much of the new "technology" in fishing that is destroying marine ecosystems and fish stocks right and left: the huge trawlers that scrape and decimate the ocean floor and net everything in their path, using unbelievably large nets. The habitat for all kinds of marine creatures on the ocean floor is gone once these "modern" trawlers pass, and no longer can provide a home for many basic species in the food chain, so a long-term marine desert is left behind. And fish stocks, logically, plummet and species become endangered and disappear. But we (and I'm saying you and me) do not "see" it as it takes place in a faraway place we never travel to, and we continue to hire politicians that go along with such practices.

Just like the H-bomb, in every sector of the economy, people can and do invent toys that can harvest once and leave total destruction in their wake. The destruction is not their problem, those who have destroyed move on quickly, but with much fatter bank acccounts.

Permaculture is about regeneration, and I would hope that we could all agree on favoring regenerative ecological practices and putting a stop to destructive ones, especially where intact virgin ecosystems are concerned, whatever the part of the world or climate zone.

And I'd also hope that people would value freedom of speech quite a lot, and think a bit about protecting whistleblowers (people and organizations) in general, just in case they're right sometimes!

Just like the H-bomb, in every sector of the economy, people can and do invent toys that can harvest once and leave total destruction in their wake.

 This made me think of Masters of War by Bob Dylan.  Here's a quote from the lyrics:  

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy

Thanks for your support, and compliments, David.  

Greetings fellow Permies!

It's been a while since I've posted anything, so I will try to keep my thoughts to the point.

This is too complicated a topic to bludgeon to death with the phrase "Clearcut Bad!"

There are instances where a clearcut is used to mimic the disturbance that otherwise is found when the fuel load of an area of boreal forest increases to the point where it encourages a forest fire to start through any number of natural means. This includes scorching the earth and revealing mineral soil. This sounds bad, but not only do some boreal tree species need their cones burnt before they will germinate, they also need exposed mineral soil. Forestry professionals I know spend a lot of their time explaining to private landowners and cottagers who don't understand that no, they aren't in fact "raping" the earth. Fires are too destructive for human habitation, so it needs to be done another way.

When individual trees get too old and don't die, when a forest is artificially old because we have interrupted the natural succession, there is less life. It is no longer accumulating carbon as a growing forest does. So if its products are harvested and the forest is managed sustainably (which is the only option for stakeholders, as in, those in the business for the long haul), and those products either replenish the recycled paper stream or go into longer-lived forest products and applications, such as buildings, more carbon is actually being sequestered.

As pointed out earlier, boreal forest doesn't have the sheer biodiversity that even the boreal/temperate hardwood transitional forests do, never mind sub-tropical and tropical forests. If anything, we should be looking to them primarily as a giant carbon sink that we can refresh so it will keep working for us, and that we can help adapt into a more resilient form using permaculture as a guide.

Don't misunderstand me. I firmly believe that everything we do should be done with a view to minimising negative environmental impacts, such as increased erosion, say. We can actually do a better job with forest succession than wildfire, and I think that we have that responsibility if we are harvesting for our own uses. But conservation in a lot of cases has come to mean stopping forest succession. There was no "forest primeval." We know that the ecological balances observed in the New World, in which most modern environmental conservatism finds its roots, were engineered by the native populace. Europeans assumed it was natural, discounted the wisdom of those who had wrought it over millenia, and promptly started to dismantle it.

And so nature takes a hand once again. Remember that forest fire in Fort MacMurray, Alberta? I know people evacuated from that mess. I'll bet that was so much better than a sustainable forestry management plan.

Any argument that seeks to manipulate my love of trees and animals into an irrational, unbalanced, and largely unexamined polarity automatically earns my suspicion and distrust. I wish the thread title were reworded so as to be less inflammatory. It makes environmental stewards seem rabid, and reduces the impact of our message. In other words, it hurts more than helps.

Regards,

Christopher Kott

Hi Chris, I appreciate you coming to this thread and adding your comments.  I just wanted to make clear, if it wasn't already apparent that I am not against logging, and I have a pretty good understanding of forest dynamics, so I do understand the necessity of fires, the ignorance of many decades of fire suppression, and the need to encourage succession, which in fact includes planning fire events (controlled burns) and, yes this means burning large tracts of forest instead of logging it.  That said, I don't think that any part of my personal writings in this thread would be considered to be done with the intent to provoke irrational, unbalanced, or unexamined polarity in you or any one else, unless you are just speaking of the title of the thread.  Anyway:  I'm not sure what exactly you are arguing for or against.  Resolute forest products does not practice permaculture, and hasn't done anything that could be construed as small scale clear cuts which might be considered somewhat sustainable.  But it should be clear to anybody who has any understanding of forest ecology that the nature of what is being done to our forests resembles nothing that appears in nature, or natural succession.  A clearing in a forest is not necessarily bad.  A valley bared of the majority of it's biomass for making paper is another story.  The erosion from the roadbuilding alone is an ongoing permacultural nightmare.  Have you spent any time in a massive clearcut?  I have.  Plenty of them.  Spent many days and months working in them.  I grew up surrounded by them.  I was raised in a logging camp and have tons of great memories of good people doing a lot of damage until I opened my eyes to the reality.  It doesn't change that they are good people, or my thoughts that logging can be productive and responsible.  Sustainable forest practices exist; and unsustainable forest practices exist.  I am talking and writing in this thread about the latter, although I have quite a lot of information in my head about the former.  The former, however, is few and far between in modern forestry.  There certainly was and is a forest primeval, and while I agree that it was manipulated by humans, they did so in ways which, though destructive, were relatively small scale, were often done for a specific successional reasons (such as increasing food crops like berries), but had absolutely no resemblance (in beginning or end product) to what is going on in Canada's boreal forest.  You might have a hard time convincing me that massive clearcuts and ancient forest fires (human caused or otherwise) are analogous in any ecological terms, but I'm willing to read your ideas if you can elaborate them. Thanks again for joining the thread.

I agree with much of what Chris Kott has written.

Where I live, in coastal British Columbia trees can get very old. I have some that are probably better than 500 years old. The Boreal forest in the interior contains species that are not generally long-lived. In this region, nature is a clear cutter. Forest fires, blow down and bug infestations regularly lay waste to the forest. Although these things happen regularly, they are not generally the sort of event that clears all biomass from a valley.

I don't like to see resources wasted, and I do see allowing forest to burn as a waste. That's why I favor small block clear-cutting as in the photo below. I took that picture from an airplane when passing over an area north of Prince George. When the blocks are relatively small, animals find more edge habitat and it is easy for them to migrate to areas of suitable vegetation. It's more expensive to log this way.

I did a month-long road trip through this area a few years back. I was looking for real estate and in each little town I asked this question, of real estate people or those at the Town Hall. "Does this town have any plan to not burn down?" Only the town of Revelstoke had an answer that I considered well thought-out.

 Human settlements , completely surrounded by mature boreal forest, are a disaster waiting to happen. We have lost two towns since my trip. I think the federal disaster relief money put into these places, was a waste of money. If a town can't find a way to protect itself, it shouldn't exist. Fort McMurray is an oil town with one of the highest income levels in the country. That they couldn't see the need to do something in the forest surrounding the place, is shocking to me. I see the bailing out of this place, as a subsidy to the oil industry.

The Boreal forest in the interior contains species that are not generally long-lived. In this region, nature is a clear cutter. Forest fires, blow down and bug infestations regularly lay waste to the forest. Although these things happen regularly, they are not generally the sort of event that clears all biomass from a valley.

 (underlining by pokachinni)
Very true, Dale, I couldn't agree more.  The only way the boreal forest has become such a huge carbon repository for the planet and amazing habitat for so many migratory birds, is because the vast majority of it has always remained intact, the cold winters do not allow much decomposition, and the water that it contains may be the largest freshwater reservoir on Earth.  

Wildfires, though devastating, burn at varying intensities in a mosaic pattern, due to geographical features, wind patterns, moister species, and other factors, leaving some islands of growth sheltered in the middle or throughout a burned area.  Wild fires often burn in long fingers extending from the front creating corridors of mixed aged forest coming up in older forests, and fire sometimes sends coals high into the air to fall and burn elsewhere but leaving gaps of forest untouched. The suppression of wildfires is one of the reason that the MPB (Mountain Pine Beetle) infestation was able to explode to pandemic proportions the way it did.  

I too would love to see more forest policy and practice go towards that which is in your photo, Dale, and I think that I've been pretty clear that I have very little challenge to such practices, but that is not the topic of this thread.  It is the last phrase quoting you above (which I underlined), which exemplifies the type of mismanagement that this thread is about.  In no way does a giant industrial clearcut mimic or somehow replace an insect infestation, a fire, or large-scale blowdown event.  And many of the large scale insect infestations, and blowdown events are caused by human interventions, such as monocrop tree farms creating the ideal situation for bug populations to explode, and huge clearcuts accelerating wind patterns.  

While I can agree that some clearcutting might be necessary in order to reset the regeneration cycles, to try to eliminate all wildfires with advanced fire suppression teams, and to not do prescribed burns is a broad scale disaster waiting to happen.

I don't like to see resources wasted, and I do see allowing forest to burn as a waste. That's why I favor small block clear-cutting

 I don't see allowing a forest to burn as a waste, since it is the natural way in that region; I believe that we should thoughtfully consider the forest ecological patterns (fire included) as the primary teacher here, rather then impose our concepts of waste to it.  The boreal forest is huge and i'm not against fighting forest fires, but they should be allowed to burn some forest, just as nature intended the succession to happen.  To try to replace forest fires with clearcuts is completely ridiculous, and presumptuous in my mind.  Here's a quote from the Boreal Forest Wikipedia:

However, the effects of forest fires and insect outbreaks differ from the effects of logging, so they should not be treated as equivalent in their ecological consequences. Logging, for example, requires road networks with their negative impacts,[14] and it removes nutrients from the site, which may deplete nutrients for the next cycle of forest growth.[10] Fire, on the other hand, recycles nutrients on location (except for some nitrogen), it removes accumulated organic matter and it stimulates reproduction of fire-dependent species.

 I would add that fire also stimulates the growth of fire tolerant species, which can withstand the fire or rapidly regenerate an ecosystem in the wake of a fire, unlike clearcut forestry.
 As this quote mentions one of the largest problems with modern logging is the road network that accompanies it.  Very few companies have any permacultural sense when building a road.  These roads are massive inlets of erosion and other hydraulic and geologic instabilities into the forest, and to top it off it exposes the landscape to further development/exploitation.  There are even better ways to log than that which is in your photo, Dale, but they require a thoughtful forester, who can see the value of an intact system rather than so many thousand board feet of lumber or tonnage of pulp for paper and the great surprise to other foresters is that a forest can be harvested almost continuously in the same area, while keeping an intact ecological system, and the forest can be planted to be diversified at the same time.  

Human settlements , completely surrounded by mature boreal forest, are a disaster waiting to happen. We have lost two towns since my trip. I think the federal disaster relief money put into these places, was a waste of money. If a town can't find a way to protect itself, it shouldn't exist. Fort McMurray is an oil town with one of the highest income levels in the country. That they couldn't see the need to do something in the forest surrounding the place, is shocking to me. I see the bailing out of this place, as a subsidy to the oil industry.

 I agree.  I had a hard time sympathizing with the city of Fort McMurray.  The town that I work out of has cut all of the dead pine (Mountain pine beetle infestation) surrounding it.  The 2 key problems with towns or rural residents being in forested areas is that their structures are flammable, and fireproof water systems/firefighting plans are not mandatory.

138 new fires in British Columbia yesterday. Four towns evacuated with more to come. Lots of dead pine burning, along with the living trees.

It's Time to rethink human settlement in the Boreal forest. And it's time to put in many firebreaks, whether they be native trees or not.

I've been preaching this for years. Over the next few days, we will see what happens when little is done.

It's Time to rethink human settlement in the Boreal forest. And it's time to put in many firebreaks, whether they be native trees or not.

  I think that this is very true.  I personally do not think that people should not live in the boreal forest, but that firebreaks are necessary, as is water support, and fireproof building.  Personally I think that the Canadian population needs to decentralize out of the urban centres (we are the most urban population per capita on Earth), and moved to the rural, including Boreal Forests Zone locations.  The villages, towns need to be built with permaculture design (with Earth Care, People Care, and reinvesting the surpluses into the system).  

I agree that firebreaks are part of the answer to creating safe town sites.  Wouldn't it be great to see a massive clearcut turned into a village based production area, with an orchard planted with contour strips of  alder, crab apple, vine maples, hazelnuts, serviceberry, pin cherries, and other wild fruiting or useful trees while thriving with large strips of poplar protecting them?  These poplar strips could still contain other tree species for diversity, but are vastly dominated by poplar (which is the most fire resistant boreal species I know).  Parts of the poplar could be coppiced for biofuels and also in strips so that the extra leafy material creates additional fire breaks), and parts of the alder, maple and others could be coppiced for rocket fuel in the village.  Within the poplar stands, denser areas could be created which stimulate trees to go vertical to seek the light.  In these small mosaic pockets could be growing tall conifers for future poles and lumber.  The mosaic pockets could slowly move and evolve throughout the poplar systems, but never be a great fire hazard.  Considering the small amount of trees that are normally actually taken to mill in modern forestry, the equivalent could easily be produced in planned cycles over time without the massive slash-pile wastelands existing at all.  The poplars could be cut selectively for use as hugulkulture to build soil biomass within the forest system, and all around the village/town.  Industrial road-builders could be employed with their machines with the extensive waterworks building off existing natural water systems, key-lines, swale systems, ponds, small lakes, and living snow fences, and these water systems would be aided by the addition and careful management of beaver and muskrat populations.  Wild herds would not be excluded, except out of village site/intensive food production areas in the village.  The herds could be carefully tagged and monitored for sustainable harvests, thus reducing or eliminating the need for ranched/farmed meat.  The village could exist in a poplar and alder coppice and many ponds and small lakes, with native and non native fruit and nut trees, and small vegetable, field crop, and animal systems.  The houses made of post and beam with cordwood/cob infill and with sod roofs would be very resistant to fires which would be unlikely to occur.  Forest workers would be employed largely in the poplar forest, creating bio-fuels, resins, hugulkultur, coppicing, and fungi harvesting and inoculation, as well as other specialty products from conifer mosaics.

Any other ideas on this or similar systems, could maybe be best put into another thread.  ?  What do you think, Dale?
 

Sure, another thread would work.

And expedient way to protect towns now, would be to mow down every evergreen within a couple kilometers, and then crowd graze in a rotation. Within a few short years, each community would have a big fire break that is maintained by animals. There are plenty of hardwood trees and shrubs, which could easily fit into such a system.

Unless I missed it, nobody has mentioned artificial senescence. Without interruption, natural or man-made, systems can get artificially old. A tree that is no longer growing, as in, that has topped out it's growth potential, and yet continues to live, is really only trapping carbon in those parts of it that continue to grow, that which regenerates seasonally, so needles or leaves, primarily. It becomes next years' forest floor duff and slowly offgasses its carbon into the atmosphere.

Also, timber operations do remove biomass. That's what they do. And while they probably take every trunk they are allowed, I can't imagine that they take all the stuff they can't use. What happens to the stuff that's too branchy, too sparse, or not the right species? I would guess that even in a clearcut, this stuff gets left behind, simply because there isn't any benefit to removing it.

I have walked clearcut prepared for replanting and I know how much is left behind. You have to be aware of it, because if not, you get tripped up pretty quickly, if you don't just snap an ankle. They usually have biomass on top to move through in order to expose the mineral soil that many species need to germinate and grow properly.

Finally, all that biomass that is recycled through natural means, in situ after insect infestations or blowdowns or what have you, that is also giving up much of it's carbon through oxidisation, meaning it's just going up into the air. This is only accelerated in forest fire situations where you don't only lose lots of nitrogen, but also every bit of carbon that burns and goes into the air. The charred bits and ash represent a fraction of what could be sequestered.

This has turned into a much more interesting topic than the original tagline, but there seem to be certain factual blindspots. Whether you cut it down and bury it, turn it into a house, or sink it to the bottom of the sea, there is more done to sequester carbon if wood is harvested and pulled out of the situation where it will give up its carbon to the air. We have lots and lots of carbon dioxide. We could have lots more long-lived wood products, and a much faster "refresh rate" of forests, if you will, and that would result in more carbon extracted from the atmosphere, not less.

This is not to suggest that there aren't any problems with the way forests are managed today. There are definitely better and worse systems of management. But this whole argument lacks balance. And a singular point. People hire lawyers all the time. To defend yourself should not be seen as tantamount to an admission of guilt. Lawyers work for lots of people. Some are doubtless good, while others may be small, vicious, vengeful little people. If the presence of a lawyer is a waving red cape to you, my guess would be that your eyes have already left the target.

And I have pretty much had it with people setting up shop on a flood plain or in dense, fire-prone forest, and then being absolutely dumbfounded when one day, everything is destroyed. Oh, and everyone is entitled to bail-out cash from the government (read: taxpayers) because nobody could afford fire and flood (I wonder why the insurance companies were asking so much for coverage, or wouldn't offer it at all? Could that have been a clue?).

I love the idea of rotation mob-grazing to make firebreaks. Combine that with on-contour swales for water infiltration and retention, and it might do something to stem the spread of grass fires and root-zone fires.

-CK

Hi Chris Kott,
While I understand and appreciate you making the point about a tree or system becoming artificially aged and thus become a source of carbon off-gassing, I think that this potential for offsetting the balance is over rated.  The living system, including the fungal network attached to the roots, are a much greater carbon sink than the small annual losses due to leaf/needle/branch drop.   These underground systems are the neuro-network of the entire forest community, and the networks that hub around the older trees hold the integrity of the system. There are plenty of other benefits that a living tree creates that are not so directly related to the carbon economy argument.  Hydrological cycles are one that comes first to mind.  Animal/plant habitat, and medicinal mushrooms are some others.  

 I can't imagine that they take all the stuff they can't use. What happens to the stuff that's too branchy, too sparse, or not the right species?I would guess that even in a clearcut, this stuff gets left behind, simply because there isn't any benefit to removing it.

 True that the company will not remove debris that it can not profit from.  These are often bulldozed or excavated into large pointing heaps and burned in late fall or early winter (a practice known as slash burning)  Here's a CBC article about it:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/province-wide-slash-burning-sparks-controversy-1.3652496    [ The focus in this article is on wood pellet industry wanting access to the fibre rather than hugulkutur or bio char which is where I would go with it... ] or the debris is left helter sketler and shattered which most often creates a drying of the woody material, which when combined with the disturbed ground covers and exposed drying soils, leads to a much greater fire risk than more selective small scale harvesting practices.

They usually have biomass on top to move through in order to expose the mineral soil that many species need to germinate and grow properly.

This may be the case in some places and with some species in Ontario, but not here.   In the past, in B.C., tree planters were required to kick or scrape the duff away to plant the tree, but that is not the case anymore.  The disturbed ground is not needed, but actually serves to dry out the area where the seedling most needs moisture to be held, and also with the system more intact, there is a better opportunity for the seedling to connect with the existing mycelial community.  

Finally, all that biomass that is recycled through natural means, in situ after insect infestations or blowdowns or what have you, that is also giving up much of it's carbon through oxidisation, meaning it's just going up into the air. This is only accelerated in forest fire situations where you don't only lose lots of nitrogen, but also every bit of carbon that burns and goes into the air. The charred bits and ash represent a fraction of what could be sequestered.

 The intent of this thread was not about the carbon/atmosphere situation, but I'm willing to go in that direction.  Forest fires are devastating, but they are natural; Unlike large-scale clearcuts, the forest has natural responses to fires.  You make a very valid point about the forests becoming unnaturally aged in some cases, but that is not the primary cause of the problems that this thread is about.  The massive clearcuts that this thread is about are responsible for far more habitat loss and degradation of the carbon cycle, than all the forest fires combined.  The clearcuts dramatically accelerate wind velocities, and ambient local temperatures, having the trees removed eliminates evapo-transpiration which reduces rainfall in downwind forest areas.  The large clearcut and road-building disturbance increases surface/ground evaporation, and cause erosion via wind and water on a scale that these landscapes have no natural way to deal with.  Next the cut blocks are planted with conifers (and 'competing' deciduous species are systematically cut out) which have a high resin content and are highly flammable particularly as they grow up to create a closed canopy which causes the lower branches to die out, and dry, creating ladder fuel for crowning firestorms.  Deciduous species which mix into the wild/natural boreal forests, on the other hand, have very little ladder fuels, and crowning fires drop to the ground after hitting their much less flammable broad leaf structures. Here's a short brief on that: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15737/$file/BraggCreek-DifferentTreeSpecicesImpactWildfire-Aug03-2012.pdf?OpenElement   All of these just mentioned factors have a clearcut system contribute to the increased risk of large scale forest fire events in the future.  As I have written, I think that small scale cut blocks would be a good way to go, particularly if they were purposefully creating fire breaks with deciduous bands purposefully left to grow or planted to increase diversity where they aren't present.  I also think that prescribed burns are a far more efficient and less destructive way to transition the forest than pushing logging roads into the wilderness and clear cutting randomly (in regards to fire breaks) and heavily, hoping that this will be a fire break, when in fact they are often creating the perfect conditions for future large scale events. This B.C. government commissioned paper provide valuable insight on this, but it's more of a dense read:  FIRESTORM  
 

This has turned into a much more interesting topic than the original tagline, but there seem to be certain factual blindspots. Whether you cut it down and bury it, turn it into a house, or sink it to the bottom of the sea, there is more done to sequester carbon if wood is harvested and pulled out of the situation where it will give up its carbon to the air. We have lots and lots of carbon dioxide. We could have lots more long-lived wood products, and a much faster "refresh rate" of forests, if you will, and that would result in more carbon extracted from the atmosphere, not less.

 I'm not sure what facts you are referencing, or what statistical evidence you have for your closing statement in this quote, but I can tell you that in spite of the shorter lifespan of these interior species, the potential for ecosystem regrowth is much greater if they are left more or less intact, especially if deciduous species are allowed their place.  At no point in my own statements in this thread have I said that harvesting trees for building structures is objectionable (although I think clearcutting for tree based oceanic carbon sinking is beyond ridiculous in my mind), but simply that the nature of certain logging practices are highly questionable, and that their critics have the right to voice that opposition without being silenced through extraneous lawsuits which are set up solely for two purposes: draining their funds and wasting their valuable time.  

to defend yourself should not be seen as tantamount to an admission of guilt. Lawyers work for lots of people. Some are doubtless good, while others may be small, vicious, vengeful little people. If the presence of a lawyer is a waving red cape to you, my guess would be that your eyes have already left the target.

To be forced to defend yourself and have your finances and time drained against a law that was set up to deal with organized crime, when you are only exposing the true nature of a corporate exploiter and giving them options to continue to profit without destroying the environment, seems to me to make your argument somewhat moot.  The presence of a lawyer is not a red flag.  The nature of this particular lawsuit is.

Hi Roberto,

I don't need quotes to support my statement if it is internally consistent with what has been presented in previous posts and also logical.

One point I think you neglected in your response to the whole artificial senescence thing is that a growing tree captures much more carbon than a mature one; it's turning sunlight, water, soil nutrients, and carbon dioxide into wood, not just the seasonal forest floor duff you mentioned. That's the main point. I will try to find the article, but one I read recently suggested that boulevard tree cycling in cities was a huge boon for just this reason. Often they just barely grow to maturity before the city cuts them down and plants another sapling. That sounds sad from the standpoint of the individual tree, but in terms of carbon cycling, it apparently has a much greater localised effect than thought possible, all because of the greater capacity of young growing trees to absorb carbon dioxide.

Also, I must voice my support for a lot of Dale's ideas. That highly selective block clearing pattern that also addresses issues of hydrology and the effects of roads on topography is one of my favourites, and if it's all that expensive to do, then somebody got the accounting wrong when they calculated the (what is it called...?) stumpage fee (I think). So if the cutting is more selective, and the planning is such that the basic structure of the land is kept intact, you still retain much of the benefits of extant mycology and the ecosystem has a lot less distance to cover in its recovery.

I mean, you don't plant your pasture in only one species, no matter how beneficial for the grazers. You don't let them graze until its bare so the pasture has more of a plant base from which to regenerate. You don't let your animals destroy the underlying structure of the pasture for the same reason. All of this applies to forests and harvesting of forest products. I think the solution above with the accompanying picture is elegant and I wish it was industry policy.

I do apologise if I trampled anyone's sensibilities, but I went into this conversation thinking everyone was on a congruent permacultural page. So I was somewhat taken aback when confronted as though I was supporting the ravaging and steamrolling of paradise. Nobody that can post to this forum is likely to espouse non-permacultural principles, so I thought everyone would be automatically dismissing generally accepted bad practice.

So if, indeed, this conversation moves to another thread where the stated focus is permacultural best practices for forestry, or permacultural tree-farming for carbon sequestration and profit (for the land and the people), please let me know. I know I got a little off-track, but it was an organic progression.

To respond properly to the thread topic, finally, I would say that the specific legal situation sucks. And the solution sucks too. In politics, nothing is changed by not voting in protest; it is silent assent. In this case, what I think will yield the best results is voting the right way, and in this case, it would be with your dollar. Also, with political matters, if you want to have greater effect, you either start talking to those people representing you, or you get into politics yourself, to effect greater change. Is there a list of MPs and MPPs that we could contact with regards to this issue? Is there an ombudsman for the industry or the MNR? Other than the link you've provided, who else is bringing attention to this issue? And is anyone working, even more generally, on bringing forestry and other industries to task for the costs of repairing environmental damage that they say we are supposed to just absorb as the cost of letting them do business here? In many ways, it is an accounting issue. If they suddenly have to account for crazy environmental cleanup costs because of damaging forestry practices, those suddenly very expensive practices are no longer the cheap and expedient method of extracting resources they once were and never should have been.

And with so much focus on the potential legal and political fallout of letting Resolute and others like them do just as they want, we should be using the political and legal framework to our advantage. I think it would be prudent to find other organisational partners, even grassroots organisations, not explicitly linked with what some on the political right might describe as "anti-corporate eco-terrorists." Anyone for whom that kind of sentiment rings true might more easily cozy up to a support organisation focusing on, maybe, the long-term business sustainability of practices that effectively destroy their resource bases. I think there might be a huge benefit to having a polyculture of human organisations to overgrow this particular problem, as opposed to a monocrop of dissidents that can be easily painted with the same brush (rightly or wrongly). With diverse angles of attack, there would be more ways to get more diverse groups and individuals on board.

I mean, what would it look like if our Prime Minister were to go visit one of these scenes of devastation, and with a tear in his eye, implore Canadians to make their voices heard in support of resilient, sustainable, and responsible boreal forest management?

Thanks for the thread, and please update us with new info when you can.

-CK

So I have started a thread about forest fire prone areas, focusing on my province which at the moment is a big deal.  Please join this thread to discuss the forest fires, or the possible ways to change the ecosystem away from fire potential.

Firestorm B.C., the thread.

On October 16th, in San Francisco, the lawsuit was successfully challenged in U.S. Supreme Court !!!  A great victory for civil liberties.  The next day, however, during a staff meeting, bailiffs came into the Stand offices attempting to seize their computers in relation to the group's (and many other group's) successful campaign to challenge the Embridge Oil corporation's Northern Gateway Pipeline.  This was in relation to a 2014 court challenge that Stand employed to push Embridge into having more public involvement in their pipeline consultation, which Embridge was attempting to push through many unceded territories of Northwest Coast First Nations; the majority of the European ethnic populations of the region were also opposed to the project.  Embridge, is demanding $14,000, which it obviously does not need as they grossed $34Billion+ last year.  The entire point of all of these senseless acts, is that they serve as bullying tactics.  These tactics serve to drain the time and money of groups like Stand from doing the important work that they do.  That work is to be the checks and balances of an out of control, corporate-greed favored, pseudo-economy which has put communities and the environment at risk.