Home | About | Donate

Landmark Deal to Protect Canadian Rainforest Called a 'Gift to the World'


Landmark Deal to Protect Canadian Rainforest Called a 'Gift to the World'

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

British Columbia on Monday will announce "one of the most visionary forest conservation plans on Earth" to protect a massive chunk of coastal rainforest—a deal that has the approval of First Nations groups, environmentalists, and loggers alike and is more than a decade in the making.

The agreement will protect 85 percent of the region's Great Bear rainforest, with the other 15 percent open to logging under the "most stringent" standards in North America, according to environmental groups who were involved in the negotiations.


This is such heart warming news! True old growth and awesome to behold.

BTW in addition to the Spirit Bear... as I remember (uh oh...lol) ...there are also the reddish colored Cinnamon Bears as well. Both are found there.


What a Blessing....


It sure is. I've seen a bit of it and it has always been a shame that we would lose such God given beauty and wonder - literally robbing centuries of old growth from future generations but Hoorah Hooray... some will be saved. Imagine what the young will see when many decades from now when everything is wall to wall people and buildings? They won't believe what they see.

A blessing indeed.


No, don't think we will get to "wall to wall" people... most of us will be gone in a couple of decades... that methane ya' know... anyway, it is a VERY GOOD start... I will say, that MY take on the whole saving the forest thing, is like this...
What DO we log for ?
If we are using that wood for something really necessary, fine.
but, I have a feeling that the elite are making "fine" furniture" and all sorts of ridiculous items with valuable wood. Valuable not because of the value they put on it, but that it SHOULD STAY IN THE FOREST IN THE FIRST PLACE.... only extremely necessary uses should be what we log for.


theinitiate - you are too sad about what is being lost which is understandable but you shouldn't let that sadness keep you from saving that which can be saved. You are too fatalistic -

Heck maybe we will be but there is no sure thing about it. We have the technology to support twice as many people as now. Sure we will have turned much of the planet into a gigantic city and the rest into one big suburban farm rather than have real wildernesses and forests but we will survive.

If in that one big city/suburb/farm overpopulated world, we can still save a few gloriously exquisite places like in this case then people can still live great lives and loves etc.

The way things were are changing but the end doesn't have to follow. Something different does but that will be a work in progress. You can't ever give up until it is way too late and even then... you try doing something else that just might work... lol.

if nothing else... human beings are creative and stubborn... seems the perfect combo for a risky future right? Saving places like this is a good sign... isn't it?

It surely is. This time everybody won.


WOO HOO! Go Spirit Bear.


I find your comments naive. Technology can support twice as many people as there are now? So, let's see - that would be about 15 BILLION people. One thing you forget to mention - the number of people who already live in desperate poverty and the billion or more who don't even have any reliable source of potable water. The fact that with the current technology and industrialization we have already reduced fish stocks to 5-10% of their historic norms, caused huge increases in desertification, and reduced the overall diversity of species so that the background rate of extinction is hundreds of times faster than it has been. Do you really think that this will get any better with all that technology that you are so impressed with? The problem that we don't want to face is that there are just too many people and they are trying to live like Americans. This causes enormous releases of CO2 and methane, great habitat destruction, and many new forms of pollution. One particularly appalling estimate is that by 2050 there will be as much tonnage of plastics in the oceans as there is fish! It is much easier to look at what the world could be if you happen to live in a relatively prosperous industrialized country. But most people do not live like that. I recommend that you look for a copy of "Planet of Slums" by the Berkeley geographer Mike Davis. He has a different point of view about the future.
Einstein said that you cannot solve a problem by employing the same level of thinking that caused the problem in the first place. The truth of that seems so obvious but the tragedy is that as a species we really don't see it and act on it collectively. New forms of technology (which is often falsely described as being "value free") are not enough. We literally have to change our relationship to the natural world and see it for something other than a giant "resources" supermarket. I see little evidence of that,
although it gives me some hope that at least part of the beautiful B.C. rainforest (which I have experienced) will have a better chance of long-term survival.
I, for one, think that this gorgeous blue-green water planet deserves better than to be turned into the kind of world you imagined.


Even if technology COULD support the added population, humans' dismal track record on managing resources, including technology, confirms that the political and logistical capability to support such population increases.


So you took what I wrote about what could be as if I were saying that is what will be? Fraid not! I spoke only about what could be possible not about what will happen.

Actually we have the technology to maintain far higher numbers of people. See if you can understand my point. We could exist in a spaceship headed for Mars because of technology. No it is not a palace with flower gardens and spacious farms and nearby forests to stroll in. It would be in an utterly artificial environment which stresses human adaptability to the limit but it could be done. Another example is a prison. An unhealthy and extreme environment. The Antarctic is another example where technology makes habitability possible.

If you extrapolate a square of ten city blocks with no trees, no grass and just concrete sidewalks and asphalt streets how many people could live in that small space? Without technology maybe a few people could manage by living like in a lifeboat etc. But with technology that same concrete and asphalt space with tall buildings and plumbing etc. is home to ten thousand people?

Whether humanity acts humanely towards other people in a future age i cannot say (personally I doubt it) but if we do, our technology could easily support 15 to 25 billion people.


This is one small but significant step for Canada. A much larger, looming issue is that of the tar sands extraction in Alberta. The destruction to date is absolutely irreparable in any lifetime yet the extraction continues. Take a look at the extent of that destruction here in a documentary by Garth Lentz: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjN3b7p9NfKAhUY0WMKHREpANoQtwIIHDAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ted.com%2Ftalks%2Fgarth_lenz_images_of_beauty_and_devastation%3Flanguage%3Den&usg=AFQjCNHlhvbOuUu2PRIwketSRQ4XXcVjdg&sig2=BWt9kz6Nt4uyLQ-Kln-KwA&bvm=bv.113034660,d.cGc

You will weep.


Imagine the congestion of Hong Kong but across a place the size of Mexico etc. If we can process the food >>> "Vat grown meat on sale today only!" ... then we will.


My family moved up there back in 1972 when I was still in school. The town had all of 8000 people then and there only one plant producing some 20000 barrels a day.

It was such a beautiful area with lakes no roads went to , rivers and streams that were untouched , peat bogs and forests in every direction.

They call all of this LIFE overburden and kill and strip it away to get at the black death that lies underneath.

They claim all of these lands will be reclaimed and returned to its natural state.

It will not happen in our lifetime and I am not so sure there will be many lifetimes after we are gone.


Perhaps knocking the "elite" for their quality furniture isn't as effective as chastising the wood product industry for making disposable junk out of the planet's air purification system.
That said, any agreement such as this one is very welcome.


The editors of CD blew it. The report is classic corporate PR and CD apparently has no mechanism for, nor journalistic protocols for -- vetting specious claims. The fact is, GBR is a corporate brand, there are thousands of true environmental grassroots activists who know this: the "agreement" is a product of the Wrong Kind of Green and a manufactured consensus, arrived at by shake and bake groups like FE who are paid very well to stand-in as greenwashing corporate proxies.

"85%" is a sham unless everyone thinks "managing" a clearcut that has been stripped of 800 year old trees is a conservation victory.

The decade of delay for arriving at the definition of -- and implementing -- ecosystem based management advised by the Coastal Information Team saw an accelerated timber disposal program. There are already bears starving because the fall runs of chum salmon have failed, due to devastated habitat.

The stunning claim of "85%" is a logical fallacy and a physical impossibility. Anyone who is familiar with the decades of logging prior to the GBR getting branded by green washing agents of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Hewlett foundation etc., can offer a very different perspective.

What's worse?
The same thing is occurring on the Tongass National Forest where the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has done and continue to do the same thing.

The lesson?
Just because billionaires have the ability to blanket media with PR fluff pieces doesn't mean we should fecklessly disseminate it.


No, we won't survive, without natural, got that? .....natural habitat... the earth, IS a living organism... you've heard about how the forest floor is all connected... put one log road in and a hell of a lot more dies, then just the road area... we need, NATURAL HABITAT... and I cannot stand the idea of "gigantic city" ....I'd rather be dead.


You explained it beautifully... thanks...


Uh, so I guess that was a knock to people who can't afford, Mahogany beds .. mahogany tables... multiple fancy pieces to impress their equally rich/elite friends with... and then, switch it all out in a few years for new.. .because, you know, it's out dated.... AND YES, we shouldn't have 'CHEAP" through away furniture... maybe we should rethink exactly WHAT IT IS WE REALLY DO NEED... and not just what we want cause, it's "pretty" or luxurious... or and extra convenience.....or like the rich have... a knock off will do... we need to rethink WHAT IS NECESSARY... and what isn't... there is plenty of STUFF already made in this world... so as not to create demand.....


It would help if you'd calm down and instead provided links and references to what you claim. People will listen when offered facts and resources that will provide concrete information that they can access themselves.

What you are saying is important but not if you only rant about it. Please provide source material for your claims. For example you say >>>

Would you mind explaining that and show why you think it is an impossibility? You say anyone familiar with the decades of logging prior to...? Could you stay in the present and restrict your criticisms to this agreement perhaps showing where (based on prior logging practices?) you feel it is flawed and will not offer the protections stated?

GW Bush screwed the Tongass which should tell you something right there but I thought some areas were to be protected.

Why do you say >>>

Why are you using the term clear cut in this context? Please explain.

There are people who will listen to facts but just railing against something is far too common online. Facts make an impact however because people can verify them and then they become their facts too. Please help ... I for one would like to hear what you have to say (facts).


I think part of the issue is the language used and poorly transposed.

The area has been subject to logging for some time. Assume it was just 1000 acres and 500 acres have already been clear cut and the old growth removed. A deal struck and t claimed "85 percent of the old growth will be preserved"

Well half of the old growth is already gone. The 85 percent is actually 85 percent of 500.

In order to get an accurate assessment of the true area that will remain protected there has to be an accurate accounting of how much of the area was already affected by logging. Although there has been logging in that area for over a century now , I am not sure how much of that old growth as a percentage has already been removed. I suspect it around 20 percent of the area has been subject to logging already but that a guess,