Skip to content

Let’s make a deal without signing away our rights

Editor: Re: Volume-based Timber Licenses vs Area-based Timber Licenses

Editor:

Re: Volume-based Timber Licenses vs Area-based Timber Licenses

MLA Bob Simpson’s letter to the editor regarding Forest Tenures in Lakes District News Feb. 6, 2013 should be a wakeup call to everyone who lives in and cares about the Lakes District.

The way I understand it is that almost all of the forest tenures in the province are volume based and there are good reasons for this. Government retains land use rights, the control of management practices on the land base and determines the volume cut for the tenure holder. The tenure holder has no authority to sell any rights to the land. The tenure holder just has rights to a certain volume of timber.

Area-based timber licences are called tree farm licenses. There are still a few on Vancouver Island. They are vastly different than volume-based tenures. The tenure holder is given complete control (rate of cut, where replanting requirements or lack of) over the tenure area and government has no say/authority over what takes place. They get stumpage but even that could be marginal. The most alarming feature is that the tenure holder has complete rights of tenure transfer without any monetary benefit to the province or taxpayers. To get the tenure back, the government would have to pay big dollars. This is why it’s called privatization (via the back door). They technically still own the land on paper but have no rights to its use.

The Liberals have stated to legislate area-based tenures to Hampton in exchange for rebuilding our mill. In my opinion they want to hand over basic ownership/rights to large swaths of the Lakes District. Hampton rebuilds the mill, runs it until all merchantable timber is cut and then decides to close the mill and go back to Oregon. They now have the right to sell their area-based tenures to anyone (think China) without any compensation to we citizens of this area. And, we do not have any guarantee that they will be resold to a timber company. There was a scandal on VI a few years ago when the Liberals allowed the sale of an area-based tenure to non-timber entity.

So, in a number of years, we could be faced with no mill, a much shrinking timber-land base; a Chinese State ownership of much of our forest land and no hopes of future employment for our children. Is this really the future we want in exchange for running a mill for a few years. Why can’t we give Hampton volume-based tenures until the wood runs out without signing away our rights to the land? There must be a reason why the Liberals would consider such a foolish/devastating proposal. What do you think it is? There is another article you should read published in the Province on 1/27/13 - “Sneaky Liberals are planning a B.C. Forest Giveaway.”

 

Judy Stratton