David Elstone

I read with concern a recent editorial by Ted Clarke with perspectives by Ben Parfitt, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives [Business in Vancouver, Feb 23]. To correct Mr. Parfitt, infestations did not begin in 2009. …In the late 1990’s and early 2000s these outbreaks expanded into an epidemic with the amount of pine being killed each year reaching a peak in 2005. …Faced with such a catastrophe, the government had two options. Option 1. Do nothing and let the dead timber decay, and possibly burn in wildfires. Option 2. Encourage the industry to use as much of the decaying timber as possible by temporarily increasing the harvest before it rotted. …Yes, harvesting, and lumber production rose to levels well above historical averages, but it was done with intention – this was no secret! 

Parfitt said the province would have been better off to give secondary value-added forest companies access to timber supplies the pellet industry is now using”. …A recent study found that 85% of the BC pellet industry’s fibre supply comes from by-products of sawmills and allied industries, and the remaining 15% is supplied from the forest including low-quality logs not suitable for lumber production and post-harvest residue. Perhaps there may be an innovator that could use some of this fibre, but not likely at the same scale of the pellet industry. …The article is correct in providing the message that “there’s every reason to believe that we’re going to see further mill closures”, but this is not news to anybody in the industry and mill closures cannot be blamed on the incorrect notions that the industry was overharvesting (dead timber) or the rise of the pellet industry.