Skip to content

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Some trees must be preserved, others need to go

Letter writers weigh in as tall trees toppled
15200435_web1_12128984_web1_7-Conservationists-atop-Doug-fir-with-stump
Conservationists with the Ancient Forest Alliance and the Port Alberni Watershed-Forest Alliance stand atop Canada’s 9th-widest Douglas-fir tree, recently felled in a BCTS-issued cutblock in the Nahmint Valley near Port Alberni. (TJ Watt)

To the editor,

Re: Loggers fall 800-year-old tree in one of the last old-growth forests in B.C., May 31.

I have been deeply saddened to learn of the harvesting of an 800-year-old tree in the Port Alberni area by the logging industry. What a travesty to remove such an awesome sentinel of our Island’s history. I am not so naive to insist that all logging should cease on our Island but I do implore those powers that be have a more discerning wisdom in their decisions about what trees to harvest. While that ancient tree may have represented a great monetary value for the logging industry it contributed far greater value to our Island’s ecosystem. Once an old-growth tree is removed from the landscape we have erased a majestic presence that cannot be regained during our present lifetime.

We must learn the hard way to pay respect to our elders of the forest. Without them, the landscape will be very bleak for us all.

Nancy Dance, Nanaimo

READ ALSO: Court hands down $84K fine for illegal tree cutting at Departure Bay

READ ALSO: Court finds that company was ‘careless’ in cutting down 45 trees

To the editor,

Somebody got fined $12,000 for cutting down a 200-year-old tree. Since the rules against cutting down trees were not in effect when this tree started growing 200 years ago, shouldn’t its owner’s cutting rights have been grandfathered?

Recently, a large tree fell, seriously damaging a home in Nanaimo and another falling tree killed a person in Duncan. This is because forest-type trees are not stable when grown in an unprotected location. Pine, spruce and similar trees have shallow roots and need the protection of other trees to resist blowdowns. Standing alone they are prone to wind damage. Having rules that prevent homeowners from taking prudent steps to remove trees they consider hazards is wrong. If you want to have a rule that those who cut down trees must plant replacement trees elsewhere on their property, that would be a reasonable compromise.

Current rules discourage gardeners from planting trees, since they could become problems that are illegal to remove in the future. Efforts to protect trees will have the exact opposite effect, since nobody wants to be held hostage by a tree.

S.I. Petersen, Nanaimo


The views and opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the writer and do not reflect the views of Black Press or the Nanaimo News Bulletin. If you have a different view, we encourage you to write to us or contribute to the discussion below.