Filmmaker Murray Wilson responds to criticism of the documentary’s case for active forest management:
I welcome criticism of BC Is Burning, but Emily Milne’s article misrepresents the film.
The film argues that fuel is the part of wildfire risk we can directly manage on the ground, and that BC has not treated enough of it near communities. The tools include, where appropriate, thinning, prescribed and Indigenous cultural burning, and regeneration harvesting. I do say we should increase harvest to reduce fire risk. I mean where risk warrants it, particularly around communities, not logging more everywhere.
She calls the people interviewed a “gang of industry people.” They include BC Wildfire Service staff, a Natural Resources Canada research scientist, a BC Ministry of Forests entomologist, a retired BC Forest Service soil scientist, foresters and Indigenous forestry representatives. They were interviewed for their expertise, not to represent an industry position.
More than 50 donors supported the film and are listed in the credits. The largest was Homestead Foods, a farm. Funders had no control over the content.
The article says “Old growth doesn’t burn like this.” But about 292,000 hectares of old-growth management areas were within wildfire perimeters between 2017 and 2024. A provincial case study of the 2021 White Rock Lake fire also found that a fuel-treatment area moderated a high-intensity fire at Westshore Estates, where no structures were lost. Since 2017, more than one million hectares of parks and protected areas have been within wildfire perimeters. Drawing lines on a map does not protect forests from wildfire.
What the article largely lacks is an alternative. I agree prescribed fire and Indigenous cultural burning are important, but they will not be enough or appropriate everywhere. If the argument is that we should not thin or harvest and should largely leave these forests alone, say so and explain how that reduces wildfire risk to communities.
We need active forest management particularly where wildfire risk is high, with measurable results and treatment at a scale large enough to make a difference.
The goal should be healthier forests, safer communities and a resilient forest economy. Doing nothing will not achieve that.