I was recently chatting with a buddy of mine and we discussed a presentation made by NSF&G club member Dr. Ken Ashley at the 2024 BCWF AGM where he talked about the effect of climate change on small lakes and what that means to anglers. My pal mentioned that he was seeing a lot of green matter in lakes that he fished and I suggested that it might be a result not only of climate change, but also logging contributing to higher water temperatures that throw lakes out of balance and make it much tougher on fish.

Now, full disclosure: neither my buddy nor I are smart, well informed people, but my friend didn’t think there was much logging in the Chilcotin, and that if there was a lot of it was probably salvage logging.

As we all know, salvage logging is something we have to do, right? I mean, we can’t just leave those beetle or fire killed trees standing and going to waste, can we?

Eddie Petryshen has a different opinion. I know Eddie from X, but in the real world Eddie is a conservation specialist who works with Wildsight in the Kootenays. You can find him on Wildsight’s webpage here and on X here.

Eddie works to improve logging practices on the ground and at a provincial level as well as on old growth protection, caribou recovery, recreation and land-use planning. He’s an East Kootenay local yokel, a conservationist and a human and coffee powered adventurer fighting for the land, water, and critters.

What follows is one of his recent X threads, reprinted with his kind permission:

SALVAGE LOGGING IN BC

The climate is changing rapidly here in BC. As climate chaos continues to become more extreme we will see more fires and more forest disturbance from insects like bark beetles. But let’s talk about what happens after fire or beetles. Let’s talk about salvage logging.

The

@bcndp recently further incentivized and prioritized industrial salvage logging. So what’s the problem and issue?

Salvage logging is logging that takes place after a natural disturbance.

This logging is heavily subsidised as logging companies will pay low stumpage rates for the trees logged. The province incentives logging as companies are on the hook for reforestation and the province wants to maximise getting burnt timber to mills + pellet + pulp operations.

BC’s ecosystems evolved with disturbance. Our remaining primary forests are a result of the complex natural + diverse disturbance regimes. From wet ancient stands that evaded fire or large disturbance for 1000s of years to open forests and grasslands that burned every 3-5 years.

It’s important to acknowledge natural disturbance is about survivors, it’s about a legacy of living organisms and dead materials. It’s about variability even in severe burns. I think the concept of complex early seral forests is an important piece of the puzzle.

Naturally disturbed forests provide complex early seral environments with more species, complexity, snags, greater biological legacies and unique understory vegetation. Salvaging removes that habitat complexity, which is not recovered with replanting.

There is a growing body of evidence that salvage logging interferes with natural ecological recovery (see the linked paper here).

The authors of that report ^ describe salvage logging as a tax on natural ecological recovery.

Salvage logging can degrade the soil’s ability to retain moisture and regulate temperature, which limits regrowth and encourages erosion, sedimentation and even landslides. The impact on fish-bearing streams can be catastrophic.

It’s a question about how we want to treat water. This study quantifies just how much we impact water quality by salvage logging. “For all parameters evaluated, salvage-logged catchments were more heavily impacted than either burnt or unburnt catchments” (paper here)

Finally, is salvage logging an effective strategy to mitigate endemic bark beetles outbreaks?

Increasingly we’re realising that burnt forests and the ecosystems they produce while they recover are incredibly important. If ecosystem resilience is the priority we should let these forests recover on their own for the most part.

Thanks for letting us share this, Eddie.

If anyone wants to see the original X thread with comments you can find it here.

We will be screening “Soul of the Fraser”, the companion documentary to “Heart of the Fraser”, June 7 at the Royal Canadian Legion in North Vancouver (123 West 15th, just west of 15th and Lonsdale).

Admission is free. Executive producer and club member Ken Ashely will conduct a Q&A.

Spread the word!

Every Junehttp://this pc pictures

I was fortunate recently to travel to the Interior with three BCWF staff members, Jesse Zeman, Neil Fletcher and Tobias Rohr, to meet with elders and staff of a First Nation that BCWF has collaborated with in the past.

A 4:30 wake up call was in order so that we could make it to the band office by 10:00, and like most trips to the Interior the first half hour or 45 minutes sucked, but once we were on the highway and driving through the Valley everything looked better.

We looked at two different sites. The first was a high altitude lake whose surrounding are had been very over-grazed and whose shores had been damaged by cattle. A good solution in this case is to reduce the amount of cattle in order to leave some food for ungulates, and failing that, fencing all or most of the lake to protect the shoreline. Another issue is that much of the water from the lake is utilized for irrigating hay crops. This can be bad for fish because it can lower the level of the lake further than normal, exposing spawning beds.

With so many competing interests a lake like this is hard to rehabilitate. Ranchers need water and grazing and restricting that costs them real money and hardship. They have range leases and water licenses and it’s hard for conservationists to overcome those challenges.

At this lake we met with the band elders, some of whom had lived on this site in the 1950s.

You can see at the top of the picture a cattle guard removed to restrict access, but that doesn’t stop cows, only drivers. The cows just walk over the fences, go down to the lake to get water, and destroy the shoreline.

The second site was much better. It is completely contained within a parcel of private land so there is only one person to make the decision about whether we can do something on his land (and he is supportive). He has a large field that is bordered on one side by a river and on the opposite side by a hill. Along the base of the hill is a secondary watercourse that takes floodwater and groundwater from the river for a length of a few kilometres before emptying back into the river.

The plan is to deepen the watercourse and add dead end branch stems whenever possible, and feed it from an intake on the upstream side on the river. We’ll connect the hillside watercourse to the river by way of a ditch across the field. During high silt flood times we’ll close the intake to prevent sedimentation, and re-open it when the water clears up again. The picture above shows where the intake would be placed. The picture below shows the field that the water already crosses during floods, but which we’ll manipulate to have a constant, controllable flow (and by “we” I mean all member clubs of BCWF).

This will create what some fish nerds and wetlands nerds refer to as “frog water”. When you find the kind of water where you’d imagine finding frogs it’s often great habitat for coho. Good habitat can increase coho fry density by a huge factor.

The images above show the in-grown watercourse. An excavator will spend about 20 days cleaning these out, making them at least 3 feet deep and adding branch stems for more habitat.

This is the end of the rearing channel, where the water taken out of the river a little upstream feeds back into the river again.

A long time, very experienced fish nerd, Sean, explains that not only will coho use this channel to rear fry, but will most likely return to spawn. In the picture with Sean is Jesse Zeman, Executive Director of BCWF, and First Nation member Keith. Although the nation’s elders accompanied us to the second site as well it was a long walk and most of them stayed back at the ranch buildings.

The total cost is expected to be somewhere between $125,000 and $200,000, and the habitat could easily add 200,000 fry each year, so it’s good value for the money. In fact, the project is so good that when I asked Neil Fletcher to rate it on a scale of 1-10 compared to all the other projects he does he gave it a 9.5.

What’s interesting about this project though, really, is the collaboration. The BCWF, the rancher and the First Nation are all going to be hands on in making this happen. The First Nation will provide some funding, equipment and staff to work on it. It’s unlikely that their members will ever catch any of the coho, but even if they do there is no question that non-Indigenous saltwater anglers like our club members will get a crack at them first, and probably land a few.

Overall it’s a great example of how consultation and reconciliation is good for conservation.

The Southern Interior Mule Deer Project is an outstanding event.

I say “event” because “SIMDeer”, as it’s known, is more than just a project. I became aware of it through BCWF, and attended a presentation by Dr. Adam Ford and Dr. Mark Hebblewhite on it at UBC Okanagan several years ago.

The project itself consisted of collaring mule deer does and setting camera traps in the woods to find out who was around. Our club, North Shore Fish and Game, provided funds for one of the collars. Over the years lessons were learned and fawns were added to the collaring program.

But one of the coolest characteristics of the study was that the data would be shared with a network of universities and wildlife bios across western North America. This commitment to sharing data came with the benefit that scientists at UBCO would, in turn, be given access to data that the other scientists at other universities were collecting. The synergies are amazing.

BCWF has done multiple webinars on SIMDeer, and there have been multiple podcasts done on it as well, but a partnership with Telus led to a great documentary entitled “Community for the Wild” that ran on Telus TV for an extended period of time before moving to YouTube.

The documentary is now available to watch online!

https://youtu.be/PCd36Yzk6Dk

A huge thanks to all our supporters that made this project happen, and still allow it to continue (note our club name in the credits!):

Forest Enhancement BC

Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation

Okanagan Nation Alliance

Bonaparte Indian Band

BC Timber Sales

Vernon fish & game club

Summerland Sportsmens Association

Kelowna Fish and Game Club

Oceola Fish and Game Club

United Bowhunters Association

Kamloops Fish and Game Club

Grand Forks Wildlife Association

Southern Okanagan Sportsmen’s Association

Kettle Wildlife Association

North Shore Fish & Game Club

Clinton Fish & Game Protective Association

Keremeos-Cawston Sportsman Association

Mission & District Rod & Gun Club

Abbotsford Fish and Game Club

Pemberton Fish and Game Club

Region 8 Okanagan BCWF

As a result of the Yahey decision the BC government has proposed some very poor solutions to the problem of industrial activity in Treaty 8 lands. They have abandoned the work done by Together for Wildlife, are ignoring previous policy, abandoning science and proposing a solution that Blueberry River First Nation did not ask for.

It’s important to let your MLA know that this is not the solution. Please print, sign and send the letter below to your MLA. This is a link to a PDF version of the letter.

Coles Notes:

1. The Blueberry River First Nation is a Treaty 8 signatory. They have a treaty right to practice their way of life;
2. A chief of the BRFN took the province to court, arguing that the cumulative impacts of industrial activity in BRFN traditional territory amounted to a breach of Treaty 8 ;
3. The court found in favour of BRFN and ordered the province to negotiate a settlement in regard to the cumulative effects of industrial activity ;
4. The province declined to appeal the decision and entered negotiations ;
5. In response to the cumulative effects of industrial activity the province has proposed the suspension of the sustainable hunting of caribou across 7B (not of endangered herds, but of all herds) and reduction of residential moose harvest by 50% along with a change to LEH for moose ;
6. This proposal is not science based – the harvest of both species is more than sustainable ;
7. This proposal does not follow the province’s own guidelines and is in conflict with the goals expressed in the Together for Wildlife process that First nations, government and stakeholders spent the last 2 years pursuing;
8. It is not clear that all Treaty 8 First Nations even asked for this solution;
9. This is a terrible proposal that damages caribou restoration, hurts the economy, punishes resident hunters and throws the process of truth and reconciliation into reverse ;
10. If you care about outdoor recreation, fish, wildlife and habitat you should vigorously oppose this proposal.

At the bottom of this page we’ll show you how to do that.

BCWF recently circulated the following op-ed:

The provincial government has floated a proposal that puts at risk the rights of all British Columbians to enjoy the outdoors in exchange for continued industrial exploitation of the Peace-Liard region, which makes up nearly 22% of the province of British Columba.

Do you value your right to hike, camp, fish and enjoy a pristine environment? Well, hang on.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled late last year that the Blueberry Nation’s treaty rights to hunt, trap and fish in their territory have been breached “by allowing industrial development in Blueberry’s territory at an extensive scale.”

As part of this proposal, the moose harvest will be cut by 50 per cent and caribou hunting closed across the region, while 195 gas, oil and forestry projects will continue, with 20 more up for negotiation.

Maybe you aren’t a hunter. Maybe the Peace-Liard sounds like it’s awfully far away and maybe it is. But here’s why you should care.

When access to the backcountry and the natural assets of this great province become bargaining chips to be dealt away for industrial development, we all lose. And the environment will lose, too.

Is this the model of the future, where the provincial government approves unsustainable resource extraction and squares the equation on the backs of British Columbians who are simply looking to connect with nature?

The BCWF is concerned that this is the tip of the iceberg and that these kinds of deals are coming to parks, campsites, streams and lakes in British Columbia.;

If you’re a hiker, camper, hunter, angler or snowmobiler you should be concerned about the precedent this proposal sets.  The government seems happy to trade away your connection to nature in favour of continued industrial encroachment.

There is a great deal to like about the Blueberry deal. The government committed $65 million for land restoration and related projects in an area that is riddled with logging, gas wells, and access roads, all of which are a threat to wildlife.

It’s an important step toward reconciliation. The BC Wildlife Federation fully supports the rights of First Nations to hunt and fish in their traditional territories for food, social and ceremonial purposes and our commitment to conservation and habitat restoration is shared between First Nations and non-First Nations.

But we must all be able to share our outdoors spaces, together.

According to the court ruling that triggered the deal, the cumulative effects of oil and gas, forestry, mining, hydroelectric infrastructure, and agricultural clearing “has resulted in significant adverse impacts on the meaningful exercise of their treaty rights, and that amount to a breach of the Treaty.”

More than 84 per cent of Blueberry River territory is within 500 metres of industrial activity, which marginalizes their treaty rights to hunt, fish, and trap.

This proposal does nothing to mitigate those impacts nor does it provide support for on-the-ground actions that benefit wildlife and habitat in Treaty 8 territory. 

Instead of addressing real concerns about environmental degradation that all First Nations and non-First Nations people share, this approach ensures continued industrial expansion.

Worse, by trading away the rights of British Columbians, the government has created a template for similar deals across the province. 

Are you prepared to lose access to your favourite hiking paths, fishing streams, BC parks, campsites and snowmobile trails? That dark future may already be here.

The BCWF advocates for conservation on behalf of more than 43,000 member British Columbians.

So?

What can you do?

1. Email your MLA.
   1. If you are a North Shore resident your MLAs are:
      1. Susie Chant, North Van-Seymour susie.chant.MLA@leg.bc.ca , phone 604-983-9859
      2. Bowinn Ma, North Van-Lonsdale bowinn.ma.MLA@leg.bc.ca, phone 604-981-0033
      3. Karin Kirkpatrick, West Van-Capilano, karin.kirkpatrick.MLA@leg.bc.ca, phone 604-981-0050
      4. Jordan Sturdy, West Van- Sea to Sky, jordan.sturdy.MLA@leg.bc.ca, phone 604-894-9403
   2. If you live somewhere else you can find your MLA contact details here: https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/members
   3. Write an old fashioned letter to your MLA
   4. Meet in person or by Zoom with your MLA (it’s their job to meet with you and it’s not as hard or scary as you might think).
   5. Go to BCWF’s website here, scroll to the bottom and send a form letter to your MLA.
   6. Go to the province’s Angling, hunting and trapping engagement site (AHTE) and leave a comment. You will need to have or will need to get a BCeID number. Click on “Login” to do either (you can get a basic BCeID from the Login page). Once you’re logged in you can vote to oppose the changes and leave a comment.
   7. Go to Howl For Wildlife and follow the directions. Howl For Wildlife is a continent wide advocacy platform that sends your message to all 86 MLAs.
   8. Get on social media and like and share Twitter, Facebook and Instagram posts highlighting this issue.

At a minimum do one of these things, but better yet, do them all and then go even further. This isn’t just about preserving resident hunting in the Peace. It’s about managing fish, wildlife and habitat throughout the province in a sustainable way, informed by science and Indigenous knowledge, and it’s also about advancing reconciliation. Blueberry River isn’t the bad guy here. They didn’t breach the treaty – the government did, and now the same government is trying to make a quick deal rather than solve the problem they created.

If we let the government get away with this they will repeat the tactic throughout the province.

If that happens we all lose.

If you are not yet a member of North Shore Fish and Game and would like to join, go to our Membership page here or straight to our online Membership form here.

It is CRITICAL that you fill out the AHTE survey. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PASSED A PROPOSAL TO HARMONIZE SEASONS IN REGIONS 7A/B AND 6, SO IF THIS PASSES, HALF OF THE PROVINCE IS AFFECTED IMMEDIATELY.

Login to the AHTE website and let your voice be heard! We have until MARCH 23

1. Go to the link: https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/…/close-peace-caribou-hunts…

2. Login if you have a BCeID (this is the same as your hunting login) if you don’t have one you can register here. (Non residents and non hunters are allowed to comment as well )

3. Scroll to the bottom and leave your feedback.

19 bighorns were killed on Highway 93/95 near Radium Hotsprings during 2021. That’s a significant number.

At the same time the provincial government is considering putting bighorns in Region 4 on Limited Entry Hunting.

This seems reasonable, right? A huntable population is under stress so we should, logically, reduce the amount of hunter caused mortality to preserve the population, right?

Wrong. Bighorns face multiple threats. Regulated hunting that targets mature males who have already passed on their genes and are past prime age is a minor threat. Much more significant threats are habitat degradation, disease, climate change and predation.

These significant threats have something in common: the solutions are costly.

The regulated, informed by science and generally sustainable mortality threat posed by hunting? It has a solution that is cheap and easy to implement. Sadly, it’s not effective because it doesn’t address the significant threats.

This approach is called “Managing to Zero” because instead of managing the resource in a way that addresses the significant threat the managers, largely because they’re under-funded and under-resourced, pull the only lever they actually can, regardless of how effective that lever is.

Why are the sheep doing this? They’re drawn to the roadside and the urban area by salt, food and lack of predators. The herd once numbered around 350, the target population is 250, and it currently numbers about 140. As Clayton Lamb, well known BC wildlife bio points out, fire suppression has reduced sheep winter range by reducing the grasslands that the sheep would normally feed on. The solution is fencing and a wildlife overpass.

What can you do?

First, visit and like the Facebook page “Help the Radium Bighorn Herd”, which you can find by clicking on the link below the image:

Second, visit the provincial government engagement page on the proposed LEH season by clicking here . When you get to the page go to the top menu and click on “Login”. You will need your BCeID, but once you go through the process you’ll return to the initial government page with one difference: at the bottom of the page you’ll have the opportunity to support or oppose the proposed change. I recommend opposing it and then sharing your reasons.

The reasons to oppose this move is that it does not solve the problem even though it appears to solve it. It omits predator control, habitat restoration and connectivity and most important, traffic death mitigation.

Last, contact your MLA and advocate for an overpass. The cost is about $4 million, which seems high, but when compared to a $300,000 statue recently erected in Radium celebrating the sheep, or an 11 million traffic roundabout, and considering the deaths of sheep, the potential deaths of motorists, and the insurance costs, it’s money well spent. Liberal MLA for the area, Doug Clovechok, has been working on this project, so if you’re a Lower Mainland voter with an NDP MLA point out to them that their nemesis, the Liberals, are more eco-friendly on this than the NDP is!

You can contact Doug Clovechok at doug.clovechok.MLA@leg.bc.ca, and you can contact North Van and West Van MLAs Bowinn Ma at bowinn.ma.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Susie Chant at susie.chant.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Karen Kirkpatrick at karin.kirkpatrick.MLA@leg.bc.ca and Jason Sturdy at jordan.sturdy.MLA@leg.bc.ca.