Mosaic
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Vancouver Islanders call for better access and environmental oversight of private forest lands
A survey by a private forest management company on Vancouver Island shows thousands of outdoor enthusiasts want better access to forest land — but an alliance of wilderness advocates is also raising concerns about environmental accountability.
Mosaic Forest Management, which oversees roughly 550,000 hectares of privately owned forest land between Victoria, Sooke and Campbell River, reports that the survey received over 7,600 responses and the feedback was clear: open the gates.
According to Mosaic's website, the company has over 20 gates on the Island that it can open and close to control recreational use — including those controlling access to popular hikes like Century Sam in Comox and Mount Arrowsmith near Port Alberni, and front-country camping sites like Nanaimo Lakes.
Access to the areas is often limited to weekends between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.
Steve Mjaaland, Mosaic's manager of forest protection, says the company would like to enhance recreational access, but gate closures are often necessary for safety and to prevent wildfires.
"It's a working forest. There are a lot of high-risk hazards, especially hauling on the roads, which would probably be the biggest risk with traffic," he said.
Among those calling for better access: Jenn Holland, who currently chairs an alliance of almost 30 grassroots groups on the Island called the Vancouver Island Private Managed Forest Land Action Alliance.
"There's gates everywhere and people can't get to beloved waterfalls or lakes or camping sites that they used to be able to access," she said.
Holland says the issue goes beyond recreation.
"We can't get in there, and we can't see what they're doing back there. We can't see if there's been a landslide. We can't see if a water course has been logged. We can't see that they've logged an entire watershed," she said.
"It's not just access for recreation, but it's access for accountability that's missing."
Issue goes beyond the gates, say conservationists
Holland says that while hiking access is something that the public can easily grasp, she's focused on bigger issues, like conservation, private forest landowners and the province, that go beyond Mosaic's control of the gates.
Dave Weaver, a retired forestry worker who now volunteers with the Beaufort Watershed Stewards, one of the groups that make up the Vancouver Island Private Managed Forest Land Action Alliance, says he takes issue with the Private Managed Forest Land Program, which was established in 2003 under the Private Managed Forest Land Act.
According to the province's website, the program works by setting out management objectives for forest landowners, who in turn develop management strategies most appropriate for their land.
Weaver says the act sets a low bar for forestry practices, especially in comparison to regulations for public forest lands, which have more restrictions on harvesting and clearcuts, and greater requirements for public accountability.
"We need to have these difficult conversations very soon, with all the parties involved — with the provincial government, with the landowners," he said.
In 2019, the province undertook a review of the Private Managed Forest Land Act, where Weaver says extensive feedback was collected from the public, local government and First Nations.
The province published its findings, which show there was a recurring theme of concern about the sustainability of forestry practices and the effects on things like watersheds on privately managed forest land — but Weaver claims no tangible change ever came from the review.
In an emailed statement, the Ministry of Forests said it's working to modernize the act following the 2019 review, and that "many of the issues raised during the review are being addressed through the government's work to make sure forestry supports ecosystem values."
But Weaver says he believes even that review would be out of date by today's standards and is joined by the alliance in calling on the province to undertake a new review.
In a statement, Mosaic said it would be willing to work with community partners toward a sustainable strategy.
"Mosaic supports enhanced collaboration between private forest landowners, First Nations, the Province, and communities to ensure responsible forest management plays a key role in BC's economic, reconciliation and climate strategies," said Karen Brandt, the senior vice president of public affairs and partnerships at Mosaic Forest Management.
A survey by a private forest management company on Vancouver Island shows thousands of outdoor enthusiasts want better access to forest land — but an alliance of wilderness advocates is also raising concerns about environmental accountability.
Mosaic Forest Management, which oversees roughly 550,000 hectares of privately owned forest land between Victoria, Sooke and Campbell River, reports that the survey received over 7,600 responses and the feedback was clear: open the gates.
According to Mosaic's website, the company has over 20 gates on the Island that it can open and close to control recreational use — including those controlling access to popular hikes like Century Sam in Comox and Mount Arrowsmith near Port Alberni, and front-country camping sites like Nanaimo Lakes.
Access to the areas is often limited to weekends between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.
Steve Mjaaland, Mosaic's manager of forest protection, says the company would like to enhance recreational access, but gate closures are often necessary for safety and to prevent wildfires.
"It's a working forest. There are a lot of high-risk hazards, especially hauling on the roads, which would probably be the biggest risk with traffic," he said.
Among those calling for better access: Jenn Holland, who currently chairs an alliance of almost 30 grassroots groups on the Island called the Vancouver Island Private Managed Forest Land Action Alliance.
"There's gates everywhere and people can't get to beloved waterfalls or lakes or camping sites that they used to be able to access," she said.
Holland says the issue goes beyond recreation.
"We can't get in there, and we can't see what they're doing back there. We can't see if there's been a landslide. We can't see if a water course has been logged. We can't see that they've logged an entire watershed," she said.
"It's not just access for recreation, but it's access for accountability that's missing."
Issue goes beyond the gates, say conservationists
Holland says that while hiking access is something that the public can easily grasp, she's focused on bigger issues, like conservation, private forest landowners and the province, that go beyond Mosaic's control of the gates.
Dave Weaver, a retired forestry worker who now volunteers with the Beaufort Watershed Stewards, one of the groups that make up the Vancouver Island Private Managed Forest Land Action Alliance, says he takes issue with the Private Managed Forest Land Program, which was established in 2003 under the Private Managed Forest Land Act.
According to the province's website, the program works by setting out management objectives for forest landowners, who in turn develop management strategies most appropriate for their land.
Weaver says the act sets a low bar for forestry practices, especially in comparison to regulations for public forest lands, which have more restrictions on harvesting and clearcuts, and greater requirements for public accountability.
"We need to have these difficult conversations very soon, with all the parties involved — with the provincial government, with the landowners," he said.
In 2019, the province undertook a review of the Private Managed Forest Land Act, where Weaver says extensive feedback was collected from the public, local government and First Nations.
The province published its findings, which show there was a recurring theme of concern about the sustainability of forestry practices and the effects on things like watersheds on privately managed forest land — but Weaver claims no tangible change ever came from the review.
In an emailed statement, the Ministry of Forests said it's working to modernize the act following the 2019 review, and that "many of the issues raised during the review are being addressed through the government's work to make sure forestry supports ecosystem values."
But Weaver says he believes even that review would be out of date by today's standards and is joined by the alliance in calling on the province to undertake a new review.
In a statement, Mosaic said it would be willing to work with community partners toward a sustainable strategy.
"Mosaic supports enhanced collaboration between private forest landowners, First Nations, the Province, and communities to ensure responsible forest management plays a key role in BC's economic, reconciliation and climate strategies," said Karen Brandt, the senior vice president of public affairs and partnerships at Mosaic Forest Management.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Related Video: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6835821
That plus some kind of application process that leads to you trying to provide evidence you're not a total idiot whose going to burn the forest down? I have mixed feelings on this issue, having grown up in the interior where Crown Land is Crown Land. I don't really like the idea of privatization of vast areas of natural resources, and the article makes some good points about lack of oversight. On the other hand, without forestry the roads wouldn't even be there in the first place, and the Mosaic campsites I have used are generally well run. As opposed to a true rec site with no oversight of any kind. I'm over camping next to a bush party full of dudes blowing rails and shooting off guns in the middle of the night.
RiverBoy
Well-Known Member
everyone should carry a valve stem puller for those guys. when they finally crash sneak into their camp and quietly let the air out of every thing they own and remove the valve stem. not that i endorse such behaviour….
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
In reference to their "logging practices":
A couple years back now, Ian Forbes and myself were indulging in some back country wanderings west of Port Alberni.
The gates into one particular area were open, so we wandered in.
What we saw shocked both of us.
Myself as a retired Fisheries Biologist, and Ian as a retired Forster.
They had cut right to the waterline one of the the Island's better Trophy Lakes - known for huge Rainbows, Steelhead, Kokanee and Chinook.
And the slope above that waterline cut was severe, pretty much insuring a slide would occur.
NOT a small strip either, it was a couple hundred yards cut right to the waterline.
Zero consideration for "riparian zones" whatsoever.
We both took multiple photographs and filed a report with the BC Ministry Of Forests.
Not only did they not answer either of our repeated requests for action, they never even did acknowledge the receipt of those reports.
That made Ian particularly furious given his career with them.
To this day I cannot shake the feeling that neither Mosaic (who also received copies of those reports and failed to acknowledge receipt of them) nor the provincial government gave a rat's butt about this flagrant abuse.
Thus I do think it VERY likely there is more than a little something to what Dave Weaver notes his concerns over above.
Simply Bad Behavior (actually illegal) from a not so nice corporate neighbor... again...
Nog
A couple years back now, Ian Forbes and myself were indulging in some back country wanderings west of Port Alberni.
The gates into one particular area were open, so we wandered in.
What we saw shocked both of us.
Myself as a retired Fisheries Biologist, and Ian as a retired Forster.
They had cut right to the waterline one of the the Island's better Trophy Lakes - known for huge Rainbows, Steelhead, Kokanee and Chinook.
And the slope above that waterline cut was severe, pretty much insuring a slide would occur.
NOT a small strip either, it was a couple hundred yards cut right to the waterline.
Zero consideration for "riparian zones" whatsoever.
We both took multiple photographs and filed a report with the BC Ministry Of Forests.
Not only did they not answer either of our repeated requests for action, they never even did acknowledge the receipt of those reports.
That made Ian particularly furious given his career with them.
To this day I cannot shake the feeling that neither Mosaic (who also received copies of those reports and failed to acknowledge receipt of them) nor the provincial government gave a rat's butt about this flagrant abuse.
Thus I do think it VERY likely there is more than a little something to what Dave Weaver notes his concerns over above.
Simply Bad Behavior (actually illegal) from a not so nice corporate neighbor... again...
Nog
Riparian impacts that haven't yet happened - and even those that have are kinda in a state of limbo - and outta of sight outta mind wrt fisheries impacts and who gets charged with what - even if they are noticed.
The Province is definitely in charge of terrestrial environments - and the Provincial Lands Act; regulating & enforcing logging laws on Provincial Crown Land. Private land is supposedly where "zoning" and "best practices" take place - often done with little knowledge & little compliance - and locked gates certainly help there. Jenn Holland in the article above that Nog posted accurately pointed that out.
Forestry practices in BC have a very sorted history.
Basically, the residual & legacy impacts from the worst logging practices became very noticeable and often blatant from the 1980s thru the early 1990s and in response the Province brought in the Forest Practices Codes (FPC) in 1995 - and later, Fisheries Renewal under the Fisheries Renewal Act in 1997.
Many companies recognized that the Province was going to bring in the FPC - and so they logged using Limited Liability Partner companies (key word: "Limited Liability") - raped, pillaged & plundered - then bankrupted their LLPs - leaving the mess, the responsibility & the costs to the Province & the taxpayer to clean-up - even if it ever was. So many examples of this trick Province-wide.
I worked within the Watershed Restoration Program (WRP) and also what became later Fisheries Renewal born out of Forestry Renewal in the late 1990s. .
FPC & the WRP were not what the Forest Licensees wanted, IMHO.
Because the on-the-ground delivery of the Fisheries Renewal Projects (funded mostly thru stumpage rates) did not normally deliver data pertinent to forestry operations needs. Sampling sites were randomly chosen (good from a statistical standpoint) - but often did include a sampling site in the next intended cutblock that might have generated info relevant for things like prescribed riparian set-backs that were determined largely on stream widths, etc.
In addition, the various consulting firms lined-up to gobble-up the new money whether they had any relevant expertise or experience - and those monies went to the principals of these firms; not the employees, nor the adjacent communities. The principals of these companies do not wish to create competition by leaving capacity in the communities - and you don't increase your client base if you admit you have no idea what you are doing. Still the story of many consulting firms today.
And very, very few of the rather expensive projects reached level 3 (actual instream work) - and there should have been a level 4 - where a thorough investigation of projects a few years down the road was done - and projects should have been put thru a cost/benefit analysis wrt fish production wasn't one of the prescribed levels. But no level 4, unfortunately (for like Dry Creek in Alberni comes to mind, Nog).
Some good info/publications did come out later - often published by Slaney et al. - which made no impact within DFO as far as I can tell:
At some point the licensees got tired of the FPC - and the Province elected the BC "Liberals" in 2001 that revoked the FPC in 2004, and dissolved FRBC in 2009, and instead brought in with a "results-based approach" Forest and Range Practices Act aimed at: "reducing cost and complexity for industry while maintaining high environmental standards". The FRPA only requires licensees to prepare forest stewardship "plans". No prescribed set-backs for riparian leave-strips.
and here we are today...
The Province is definitely in charge of terrestrial environments - and the Provincial Lands Act; regulating & enforcing logging laws on Provincial Crown Land. Private land is supposedly where "zoning" and "best practices" take place - often done with little knowledge & little compliance - and locked gates certainly help there. Jenn Holland in the article above that Nog posted accurately pointed that out.
Forestry practices in BC have a very sorted history.
Basically, the residual & legacy impacts from the worst logging practices became very noticeable and often blatant from the 1980s thru the early 1990s and in response the Province brought in the Forest Practices Codes (FPC) in 1995 - and later, Fisheries Renewal under the Fisheries Renewal Act in 1997.
Many companies recognized that the Province was going to bring in the FPC - and so they logged using Limited Liability Partner companies (key word: "Limited Liability") - raped, pillaged & plundered - then bankrupted their LLPs - leaving the mess, the responsibility & the costs to the Province & the taxpayer to clean-up - even if it ever was. So many examples of this trick Province-wide.
I worked within the Watershed Restoration Program (WRP) and also what became later Fisheries Renewal born out of Forestry Renewal in the late 1990s. .
FPC & the WRP were not what the Forest Licensees wanted, IMHO.
Because the on-the-ground delivery of the Fisheries Renewal Projects (funded mostly thru stumpage rates) did not normally deliver data pertinent to forestry operations needs. Sampling sites were randomly chosen (good from a statistical standpoint) - but often did include a sampling site in the next intended cutblock that might have generated info relevant for things like prescribed riparian set-backs that were determined largely on stream widths, etc.
In addition, the various consulting firms lined-up to gobble-up the new money whether they had any relevant expertise or experience - and those monies went to the principals of these firms; not the employees, nor the adjacent communities. The principals of these companies do not wish to create competition by leaving capacity in the communities - and you don't increase your client base if you admit you have no idea what you are doing. Still the story of many consulting firms today.
And very, very few of the rather expensive projects reached level 3 (actual instream work) - and there should have been a level 4 - where a thorough investigation of projects a few years down the road was done - and projects should have been put thru a cost/benefit analysis wrt fish production wasn't one of the prescribed levels. But no level 4, unfortunately (for like Dry Creek in Alberni comes to mind, Nog).
Some good info/publications did come out later - often published by Slaney et al. - which made no impact within DFO as far as I can tell:
At some point the licensees got tired of the FPC - and the Province elected the BC "Liberals" in 2001 that revoked the FPC in 2004, and dissolved FRBC in 2009, and instead brought in with a "results-based approach" Forest and Range Practices Act aimed at: "reducing cost and complexity for industry while maintaining high environmental standards". The FRPA only requires licensees to prepare forest stewardship "plans". No prescribed set-backs for riparian leave-strips.
and here we are today...
Interesting point about consulting firms. I was wandering around with a backpack electroshocker back in the day. The FPC did seem like a bit of a gold rush. Smith Root probably made a bundle.
Ya - never been a big fan of electroshocking - particularly on the fairly pristine (re: low solutes/electrolytes & low electrical conductivity) rain-fed creeks on the Pacific range. One has to crank the voltage way up past 500V to stun fish - and the generated electric field is very short, small & intense - so often the shocked fish end up both burnt & with broken backs. I've caught lots of these poor fish in depletion studies using electroshockers.
Minnow traps & nets are the better way (& cheaper to buy) - but more expensive for consulting firms to come back again to empty the traps - 2 helo trips verses 1.
AND... the consulting firms OWN their piece of specialized equipment that most others can't afford - and usually plan to pay it off by the end of that project thru the charge-out rates.
So... no incentive there to do it differently.
The smart & experienced crew bosses also pack in a bag or road salt to throw a couple handfulls into each pool to reduce the voltage. But only if they care enuff what they do to the fish.
Last edited:
We carried salt. I've doe 3 pass removals and salvage in some places where the conductivity is great. Construction projects and the like. But where I was working doing FPC work, the conductivity was not great. Luckily we were just confirming presence. But yes, the voltage was high.
seahorse
Crew Member
Well I could go on forever about Mosaic aka Comox Logging, Crown Zellerback, Fletcher Challenge, Pacific Forest Products, TimberWest, Island Timberlands, MacMillan Bloedel Private Lands. I worked for FCCL/ TimberWest for 12 years as a Forester and Timber cruiser. They logged unsustainably on their private lands for many years as they also had crown TFL47 in Johnstone Straits, Beaver Cove and Sandspit which was governed by other rules. They actually did have a “Code Plus” mentality for years where they left wide riparian areas but that was all abandoned when a new CEO came along around 1998 or so in favour of maximizing cash flow. They also tweaked the site indexes on the forest inventory to ramp up the cut. A Harvard PHD employee named Larry Prominitz made the case to increase the cut once they bought Pacific back in 1997 to pay for the $650 million loan they took out for the 120,000 hectares of private land they bought. It only took 5 years for them to see the average log size drop drastically to where they had to let go of 55 staff and move to a contracting out model to lower costs enough to keep the Stapled Unit stock distributions of $1.05/ share alive. They sold out to big Pension plans back east as they were cash rich and private land is a hedge against inflation, I ended up selling a bunch of my shares at $6.37 when they sold and lost a bunch of money.
It’s an interesting dance as they don’t own the fish or the wildlife but need to manage for fires and vandalism. I would like to see more access myself.
I should mention that Robert Dunsmuir was gifted the land as part of the E&N Land Grant back in 1871, all subsequent logging companies paid the going rate per acre from Dunsmuir afterwards, still cheap by today’s standards.
It’s an interesting dance as they don’t own the fish or the wildlife but need to manage for fires and vandalism. I would like to see more access myself.
I should mention that Robert Dunsmuir was gifted the land as part of the E&N Land Grant back in 1871, all subsequent logging companies paid the going rate per acre from Dunsmuir afterwards, still cheap by today’s standards.
Last edited:
Mosaic can suck it. Just got back from Buttle Lake and they have cut the couple of hundred meters of forest between the campsite and Darkiss Lake. Totally unnecessary could easily have left that small parcel to shade the trail and Darkiss lake. They put signage up up and make themselves out to be some kind of ecosystem saviours. Brutal
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Not defending it but I read they stopped doing this along highways because if they leave a strip of trees that are not wind harden they eventually get blown down anyways.
Similar threads
