Somebody is being fed a big lie.

And for what reason?

Stewardship.

Did I say "eco-freaks", I meant "environmental scientists" even thought there's no such thing beyond a phrase on a sheet of paper that the diploma-mills we call higer education hand out.

Environmental "stewards" is the correct term. Watchdog, advocate, whistle-blower, all appropriate terms for the hysterical planet-saving eco-freaks, but not "scientist".

Science holds itself to a far higher standard of proof than relentless doomsaying based on largely anecdotal evidence, that's food for the religiously "faithful".

There's a difference

between being shamed by someone capable of an informed decision and somebody who as been brainwashed.

i cringe every time teachers

i cringe every time teachers take up a new cause. half of the grade 10's can't write a proper sentence or add 43+38 without a calculator, but for sure they'll all be able to quote 'an inconvenient lie' word for word.

Oh dear

I cringe every time teachers take up a new cause. Half of the grade 10s can't write a sentence correctly or add 43+38 without a calculator. comma splice removed But, for sure they'll be able to quote "An Inconvient Lie" (sic) word for word.

I wonder if they still teach kids that old saw about stones and glass houses?

LOL

Since it needs repeating, the green exercises the kids in the story are doing incorporate the three Rs. It's called whole learning I believe and it's very effective at engaging kids by giving them a more fulfilling learning experience than memorization and learning by rote.

Some people in BC make me puke

Union attitude.
Cynicism.
Don't give a damn.
Spoiled rotten.
Don't know how lucky they are.

Fishermen who have never, ever attempted to understand fish biology but expect them to be there to catch.
Loggers who cut down trees and never plant one, but are all hurt when there are none left to fall.
Teachers who go through the motions.
Politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Gimme, gimme, gimme.

A question

What exactly is a union attitude?

I hate to break it to you, but just like any subset of society, there's all kinds of attitudes in any union, just like in the College of Physicians, the Bar Association, and all the other professions that have group representation to bargain their remuneration and benefits.

'It's called whole learning

'It's called whole learning I believe and it's very effective at engaging kids by giving them a more fulfilling learning experience than memorization and learning by rote.'
now there's an lol if i've ever heard one. whole learning was the hip and cool 'strategy' of the late '70's and the '80's. it's one of the reasons that our universities have had to dummy down their standards so drastically. but some clones continue to believe in it, and besides, if you're a teacher it's the easy way out. don't teach grammar, spelling or essay writing, get rid of all exams, and laugh your way to the bank. now there's a unionist attitude if i've ever heard one.

nominalis said

nominalis said, I see children who are being abused by special interest groups.

I agree, and many teachers definitely fall into that category. Let children enjoy their innocence, as the realities of life will soon enough be hoisted upon them.

“What exactly is a union attitude?”

Probably flying level with the economic horizon, but constantly on the lookout for financial updrafts and downdrafts. For some their attitude is just barely above ground, for others it’s stratospheric.

Some unions are better equipped than others at maintaining their attitude, and at taking airspace from others, and some are heavily armed ... you never know when the flight path will be compromised by someone trying to take over your air space.

Usually the most heavily armed fly highest and do well, until they have to land and refuel. Lately it seems the tanks at their favorite strip are turning up empty.

Soon a great many will discover a new attitude: crash and burn.

Sorry. Sometimes it takes very little to keep me amused.

great thought woody, but

great thought woody, but it's not quite that simple b/c the bctf is, above all, a very politicized organization.

3 G's replace 3 R's

Green, Greener, Greenest.

Reading comprehension - it's not just for kids anymore

Have any of you fools frothing at the mouth over children learning about ecological issues actually read the article? Doesn't seem like it.

Once again... and quoted from the article you didn't even skim before polluting cyberspace with your nonsensical, illogical opposition to the program:

"This is hands-on, experiential learning," he says. "You have to make meaningful connections within the curriculum."

Love the anti-union rhetoric by the way. THAT's not a surprise. Naivete may be charming in children, but it's just laughable in so-called grown-ups.

Me think gud wun day

Why don't you come up with a single example of a school within the B.C. system that doesn't have spelling, grammer, or essay writing as part of its curriculum? Then you won't look like you don't know what you're talking about.

Good luck. I'll be sitting here thinking about the marketing document the management at the company I work for proudly sent out with a glaring spelling error in it. Too bad we didn't negotiate bonuses for pointing out that kind of thing in our last contract... this union worker would be that much richer.

Reality. It's a kick. Give it a shot sometime.

Caring about the environment is not a fad

A "union attitude" is the cynical, grumbling attitude I hear when lazy, overpaid and overweight adults, who care nothing for the environment, carp about other people's efforts, especially kids. It takes just one cynic to trash a good project. Usually, it starts with a question about liability insurance. Many's the hiking club and naturalist club that has been decimated by this attitude.

Kids are getting out to play in the woods where they live about 50% less than they did ten years ago. They get bombarded by corporate advertising every day, and recognise hundreds of corporate logos yet they do not know the names of a dozen birds, or even the commonest plants in the forest. We build them schools that have no windows. You can't build prisons like that, yet we expect kids to learn there.

Read the book "Last Child in the Woods" by Richard Louv, and weep. In a better world, parents would be playing with their kids. That hasn't happened in decades.

I work with students, from Grade 2 to 12, on Work Experience projects and Career Prep. About 10% of these teenagers would love nothing more than to do a down-to-earth stream or wetland restoration project or a garbage cleanup. They respond to being given responsibility, because they get no respect from most adults.

I have felt ashamed, more than once, when I work with kids to clean up a creek, because they are doing work their parents should be doing.

When is it Child abuse?

Some Teachers are spreading Hatred in the classrooms pretending its ecology. We have an ongoing situation at the Lineaa school on Cortes Island. They have classes teaching children (Gr 1-8) how to make signs to protest logging.
[COMMENT REMOVED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. -MODERATOR.]

Re passing on the Torch

Fish-counter, I've always held a great deal of respect for people such as yourself and techers who donate their time and effort to help kids understand the environment. But it is not just kids who cannot name various plants (and even some of the trees) found in the woods, it is true of many loggers themselves, as well as the average parent.

I place the full blame for this upon the mainstream environmental groups such as Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics and so on which have stayed focussed upon Preservation (Parks, etc) instead of sustainable logging. (The Great Bear Rainforest is too much a can of worms to get into here).

In their promotion of Preservation, they have emphasised virtually meaningless "Spiritual" values along with equally meaningless - to us - cultural values for aboriginals. All noble stuff, of course, but it doesn't at all relate to the average citizen's experience.

Nor does it relate to the experience of the logger who would likely be more favourable to environmentalism if he didn't see Preservation as a direct threat to his ability to pay off his mortgage, which it is.

That logger is far more likely to believe information coming from the company biostitutes among the Registered Professional Foresters, than the flowery phrases such as provided by Dogwood Initiative, adding to the above examples.

And so he is unlikely to understand the necessary role of old-growth in the forest ecosystem, which would be critical on an island such as Cortes. [EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. -MODERATOR.]

When I think of how many of the millions of dollars that have been funneled into the environmental groups have been wasted, and how much more could have been achieved if various naturalist and other outdoor groups had gotten even a third of it, it makes me sad.

The deficit today is trustable, down-to-earth environmental information on LOCAL issues and for now we will have to rely upon naturalist clubs, people like fish-counter, and some teachers to strike the spark that will create some activists for tomorrow's issues.

'They have classes teaching

'They have classes teaching children (Gr 1-8) how to make signs to protest logging.'
shameful but not surprising. for some reason many teachers feel that they have a right to impose their personal views on their charges, and as long as it suits the ideology of the bctf they'll be supported, as witnessed by the recent case of the teacher who broke the law by refusing to give the fsa tests to her students. the dean of education at sfu, by the way, called her a hero. fancy that.

OK, I’ll bite ...

What would these naturalist and other outdoor groups have done differently so as not to waste dollars?

Promote sustainability? There’s no such critter. By definition it’s entirely human centered. It’s a greenwash term used by everyone, including enviromentalists, to create an illusion of environmental concern. Government and industry love the concept. They’ve tried (sadly with much success I see) to convince everyone that it’s their new raison ‘detre.

It’s BS. When push comes to shove fish will be caught, trees will fall, land will be eroded, air and water will be polluted. We’ve constructed our world in a way that prevents thinking and believing that ‘less’ is better. Folks in positions of power won’t try stopping the carnage until it becomes obvious that there are no fish or forests to harvest, and the air and water are too foul for survival. By that time it’s too late.

Sustainability requires a situation where we accept that energy loss must equal energy input” there are finite limits to growth. At the moment that ain’t in the cards. The growth rate in energy use is increasing not decreasing. And it’s increasing faster than technological change or population growth.

The rate of environmental destruction (around the globe) is increasing in spite of the efforts of the Sierras, Suzukis, WCWCs and the myriad of local environmentally focused groups. There ain’t a corner of the planet that hasn’t been seriously polluted with humans and their activities.

However, whether you agree with their methods or not, those little pockets of less-damaged aquatic, marine and terrestrial environs are the result of a focus, by environmental groups, on preservation.

At the moment we are ignoring a big part of the picture. The next step is to recognize that spiritual values (destructive or not) are part of our environment. They are real and meaningful.

The workings of the human mind is the next environment that needs close examination, study and exposure. The result of our failure to recognize this is too obvious.

Is The Sky's falling!! Where??

[EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. -MODERATOR.]

Most Resource workers work hard and do care about the sustainability of the environment they work in.

Cortes is covered with 2nd and 3rd growth forests that environmentalist now call pristeen. Thats what returns years after it was clearcut logged. How is pristeen Bad, Dead or Destroyed?

Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation and ForestEthics are not concerned about sustainability or contributing to a healthier Future forest. Fund raising is all thats important to them.
Do they have ethics? I've never seen them!

Ecological ethics as defined by the ESA i can agree with.

http://esa.org/aboutesa/codeethics.php

a: Ecologists will offer professional advice and guidance only on those subjects in which they are informed and qualified through professional training or experience. They will strive to accurately represent ecological understanding and knowledge and to avoid and discourage dissemination of erroneous, biased, or exaggerated statements about ecology.

i: In communications, ecologists should clearly differentiate facts, opinions, and hypotheses.

.......

Most environmental groups have no published code of ethics by which to hold them accountable. Its a free for all spreading of mis-information

Honest environmental information is important to make wise future planning decisions. Unfortunatly extremism has taken over and twisted the dialog to where we are going to waste billions on accomplishing nothing.

The environment is not destroyed in a second or third growth forest after Logging.

I've been challenging local environmentalist for 20 years to show me where the Environmental distruction is. 20 years later still nothing... its all hot air. Alot of them have gotten wealthy crying the sky is falling. Places like Hollyhock on Cortes are unsustainable according to their own rantings.

But their above environmental accountability (No Ethics) Look close who runs the place they don't walk their talk.

Educational is more like eco-brainwashing (Send Money) Do as they say not as they do.

Sustainability means removing the blindfolds the evironmetalists invent. Look at the whole picture after the smoke and mirrors are gone. The sky's not falling.

Response to KWD and JStog Part One

KWD thinks sustainability is a myth, while JStog thinks the forest industry practices it. Both are wrong.

Sustainability in harvesting Salmon and other resources was practiced by Coastal aboriginals who fully understood how it worked, having had some thousands of years to observe cause and effect. However, because of their isolation, their system was never tested by the incoming of improved technology until the white man came along and changed the mode of harvest, which aboriginals then bought into, having no previous experience with it.

In Our Common Future, Gro Brundtland pointed out that sustainability works best from the bottom up, where the benefits of sustainable practices are first felt by the people using the resources, and who then have a stake in making it work, as opposed to the Corporate model where resources are exploited to exhaustion, with people coming second.

While KWD correctly points out that we labour under the latter system which is imposed upon us, that obviously does NOT mean sustainability is unattainable, and there are many contemporary examples to demonstrate this.

JStog thinks our present system of forest practice is sustainable, but that is an illusion made to seem real through "Green-up", in which the beginning of a natural forest regenerates after a clearcut, but which is harvested again while it is still in its "adolescent" years.

This is the so-called "farming" model, and it denies its experimental nature (as contrasted with a minimum of 10 - 20,000 years of experimentation with REAL farm crops). Today European foresters - who invented the idea of "tree farms" - are experimenting with ways of restoring "wild" attributes to their now ailing plantations.

The fact is that our untouched forests are complete, well-functioning ecosystems in which all species are mutually interdependant - including the trees - in often bizarre ways we would never of guessed, and about which European foresters from whom we took our system hadn't the faintest inkling.

It is normal and natural for a forest to regenerate after a cataclysmic event such as a fire, landslide, disease outbreak, clear-cut, or what-have-you. It is NOT normal, however, for a forest ecosystem to be kept in a perpetual "baby to adolescent" stage of 40 to 80 years as per today's forest plans.

There are many essentials for forest ecosystems, such as some mycorrhizal fungi, various plants, birds and animals, which are found ONLY in Old-Growth stands. These contribute to the health of nearby second-growth stands, as well as preparing the way for future stands to follow them, and also serve as reservoirs out of which emigrate colonizers of the second-growth as those stands mature.

That's the bare bones of forest environmental sustainability. I'll deal with economic sustainability next.

Response to KWD and JStog Part Two

The issue of economic sustainability is a vitally important issue which loggers have been BS'd into ignoring, while enviros have visualised logging as too dirty for their delicate minds to conceptualise and have either shunned it, or used it as a trade-off. (GBR)

But the simple fact is that it is logging which has been the cornucopia out of which great wealth has flowed for over one hundred years. And it hasn’t been just “fibre” which has brought that wealth. Rather it has been our possession of the best softwoods in the world. Our Sitka spruce, our Douglas fir, our Red and Yellow cedars, our Yellow pine, our Tamarack, and even the lowly Lodgepole pine – all have served us very well. But this has been a heritage, and is not – in human time frames anyway – renewable.

For us the primary value of this timber has been found in its size, ideal for ease of handling, relative freedom from defect, its strength-to-weight, clear characteristics, and suitability for pulp. These are the result of good growing conditions in our temperate climate, but more than ANYTHING else, its age, ranging up to 1500 years. We have only one species that can approximate the value yield of Old Growth in under 100 years, Lodgepole pine.

But we have all kinds of Annual Allowable Cut rotations set at under 100 years. We may get the same tree VOLUMES as before in this time, but there is not even the dimmest hope of recovering the same revenue for the Province, nowhere near the same number of people employed, and nowhere near the wages paid.

And in terms of sustainability, it has been for the most part been squandered, viewed as a resource without end and having little intrinsic value. Today, as we search out the remnants left behind, using helicopters, we are literally stealing from future generations while removing the most genetically desirable trees from the population.

If it was me with all the money and power, KWD, I’d bring in a bunch of research foresters from the US (they’re light-years ahead of ours), and have them hold seminars for various groups – loggers, teachers, outdoor club members, etc. I’d then finance school projects such as wild gardens and outdoor forays. I’d set up herbariums in every ecoregion of the Province and pay locals to learn enough to staff them. I’d produce TV documentaries to promote local environment awareness. I’d promote and subsidise the building of trails.

The fact is, KWD and JStog, most people, just like the kids, are interested in the environment. And it is axiomatic that once people become familiar with the environment (ie hunters, fishers) they take ownership of it and become protective of it. And it is here I see the big enviro groups as having failed.

Enviro groups have failed?????

Ecological concerns have gone from fringe to mainstream in just a few decades... and not because of industry or gov't. The big enviro groups can and should take full credit for that shift in thinking.

re: trees and human time frames, consider this excerpt from an essay by Danny Hillis with the Long Now organization:

"I think of the oak beams in the ceiling of College Hall at New College, Oxford. Last century, when the beams needed replacing, carpenters used oak trees that had been planted in 1386 when the dining hall was first built. The 14th-century builder had planted the trees in anticipation of the time, hundreds of years in the future, when the beams would need replacing. Did the carpenters plant new trees to replace the beams again a few hundred years from now? "

Legal concerns?? Strange!!

When is it Child abuse? JStog1 day agoSome Teachers are spreading Hatred in the classrooms pretending its ecology. We have an ongoing situation at the Lineaa school on Cortes Island. They have classes teaching children Gr 1-8) how to make signs to protest logging.

The Rest of the post was removed???

COMMENT REMOVED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. -MODERATOR.

Is it Legal concerns or simply Censorship? Wasn't anything offensive to anyone just factual infomation relating to the subject matter of the preceding article.

A true actual event that took place in my own community with in regards to Merv Wilkinson speaking to children at the public schools on Cortes Island.

Can the moderator please explain the legal concerns? I read the comment code of conduct before posting my comment and saw no problems with it. My second post explained the situation further in an honest and fair manner.

Are we not allowed to repeat whats truthfully being taught to kids in our public schools? And whos telling it to them?

for Stump

Sorry Stump, your good buddies in the big enviro Engos were opporunistic entrants into BC's environmental scene somewhere around the end of the 1980s, in the Clayoquot days.

Apart from the naturalist and mountaineering clubs, and the Park advocacy groups, there was little activity on the environmental activism scene until SPEC with its Court challenges was formed in the early 70s.

The next group to catch the public's attention was Island's Protection Society (IPS) which took the MoF to court over steep slope logging in Riley Creek, on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and then went on to promote the South Moresby Wilderness Proposal from 75 to 85.

During the years from 79 to 85, and as part of the South Moresby campaign, the primary agitation involved a very successful media attack upon the forest industry for its wasteful, anti-environmental and unsustainable use of the forests entrusted to them.

After the Riley Creek campaign, this was only the second time for BC's forest industry - and the first time for M&B - of being held up to public scorn.

This was in large part achieved by Paul George with his Western Canada Wilderness Committee (WC2), producing literally hundreds of thousands of broadsheets which rallied support from Coast to Coast.

Of equal importance were the efforts of the late Colleen McCrory and her Valhalla Wilderness Society, with her networking skills and her tireless work in the media promoting South Moresby.

I have no idea why both these organisations which are still very active and highly dedicated are not also recipients of the six figure grants regularly recieved by the big enviro Engos.

All I know is that since the biggies have entered the scene, and become its primary actors, we've seen "Forest Certification" become the joke which "certifies" heli-logging, Variable Retention, and whatever other hokum today's company forester can label as "Ecosystem Based Management". It is little wonder Campbell heaps such praise on them.

The other obvious effect of their presence is that the public now seems to believe that there is no longer any reason for the War in The Woods - even a little one - an obviously total understatement. Think about it Stump, your loyalty is misguided.

Enviro-awareness

ME2:

Here's what you had said:

And, as I've pointed out, the past few decades were the ones in which the public's interest in environmentalism was fired up by environmental groups. A fact which you've corroborated with your post which precedes this one.

It's not a question of loyalty, so don't try to obscure the facts and sidetrack the issue. Whether you like it or not, the environment IS an issue due to awareness created by 'big' environmental groups.

Further, it's been roughly 'a few decades' since the 80s... although I would say the genesis of modern environmental concerns is a direct result of Greenpeace's anti-nuclear campaigns during the mid-70s.

You can try to claim hunters and fishers as the 'real' environmentalists all you like (and I won't deny them their contribution to the cause) but public perception and concern has come about through the very efforts you're attempting to condemn.

Enviro-awareness ?? or Enviro-dishonesty

Here's a good reason why we need to question what is taught in the public schools.Tha forest in northern BC is mostly under 100 years old by natural fire selection.The many species include white spruce, black spruce, white pine, and red pine. 100 years is considered old growth in northern BC.

Even Merv Wilkinsen had a volume rotation of 75 years -The original plan was to revolve or replace its volume in a 75 year period. Its a good harvesting age for most species in my location.- according to Merv
http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/731/1092

Employment declines But Modern equipment has made working in the forest safer than 100 year ago and more productive. Wages are higher. The forest will always generate revenue for the Government the question is where will it be diverted to.

Me2 fails to look at the whole forest, its very diverse. Very little forest land is capable of growing 1500 year old trees. Forest Age is controlled by the fire frequency of a given area.
Growth and yield surveys record the natural forest cycles and ecological changes. Alot of knowledge is derived from the comparisons of ecological data collected in 10 year intervals on the exact same spot in the forest. This has been going on for decads now. Unfortunately the public's knowledge of forestry/silviculture is diminished by mis-information that overwhelms society with fear.
Spreading false information needs to be addressed both in this comment forum and our school system. Those Exaggerating and causing public fear should be held accountable as they seem to expect others to be.

All The attributes Me2 refers to in a old growth forest (mycorrhizal fungi, various plants, birds and animals) returns quickly after the forest canopy is re-established. What Me2 fails to recognize is the vibrant transition of other mycorrhizal fungi, plants, birds and animals that move into an area when a forest component is altered such as canopy removal by man or fire. The forest ecology is very resilient. Thats My own observations from living within it for many years.

Man is a normal function of the forests, we harvest it for our housing needs and reforest to enhance its sustainability. Its not a perfect science but its a simple one. Human time frames are irrelevant when you plant a tree expecting some other generation will decide its fate. Replanting an ancient forest is easy but dependent on what knowledge we leave for next decision maker.

Enviro-awareness ?? or Enviro-dishonesty part 2

I'm surrounded by living proof of sustainability of our forests. 2nd and 3rd growth forest are now called pristine. Some teachers even claim its an "as yet untouched ecosystem" but the forest floor is littered with old growth stumps. Genetically desirable trees can always be protected by collecting seeds and replanting trees from them in the future. In northern Ontario they do aerial seeding with loaclly collected seeds over burnt forest areas. Silviculture is multi faceted proactive endevour at ecological sustainable land management.

Your right kids are interested in the environment. But they need honest information and knowlegable teachers.

Me2 thinks we should bring in American foresters i shudder at the thought. I've seen the genetically altered super growth forests they've developed. No thanks.

Good Foresters need knowledge of the local ecology of the area. Its a science of observation, data collecting and planning with experienced locals. A text book from New York City or the national geographic magazine is irrelevant to making wise knowledgeable decisions.

The forest ecosystem is sustainable on its own whether we intervene or not. The ecosystem cannot be destroyed just look at Mt St Helens its all growing back. Were just a speck in time.

We can destroy the forest by converting it to realestate developments Like Renewal Lands Corp is doing on Cortes Island. This is truly deforestation yet its being promoted as conservation forestry in our schools and universities.

Environmentalist have failed to accomplish anything except generate alot of income for themselves and spread Hatred against Identifiable groups of workers for no valid reason.
People are still homeless, dying in the streets and starving on the planet. War is spreading. But Teaching "the sky is falling" in our schools is somehow more important. I disagree.

Stump is right, the public's interest in environmentalism was fired up by environmental groups.... screaming the sky is falling , send donations.
If you tell enough people a lie it will commonly become known as the truth, but truthfully its still just a lie.
Is this what we want to teach in our schools?
If We need to teach environmental responsibility in the classroom, it needs to be honest, knowlegable and proactive. Go plant a tree don't protest someone who's planting one.

Cortes Island

may well NOT be a microcosm of the world BTW. I wouldn't take the teachings that go on there as necessarily emblematic of environmental education as a whole.

I also find the accusation that enviro-groups traffick in lies a bit suspect. Given the deep pockets of their opponents, one could suppose any mis-information on their part would be quickly countered, esp. as most people prefer to be told "don't worry, be happy" as opposed to "the sky is falling".

the sustainability myth

Claiming that North American natives (pre-contact) fully understood and practiced sustainablitiy is stretching it … a lot.

Best guesstimates for Native American populations (north and south americas), pre-contact, lay somewhere between 50 and 110 million people. Of that total approx. 5 – 7 million were living in what is now Canada and the U$, with the largest populations south of the 49th.

If we’re generous we can assume about 3 million +/- were living in Canada at the time of contact. This is a far cry from today’s 30 million Canucks and 300 million or more Yanks presently sucking the environment dry, pretending they can do it sustainably.

The relatively low population numbers at contact, and hence, the impact on the environment, probably had much more to do with a lack of technolgy (that would allow higher harvest/exploitation rates and large populations) and, to a lesser extent, on superstition (mythology), than some bizzare Eurocentric sense of “sustainability”.

Ethnographic records recount many stories of widespread famine and starvation during times of scarcity. Populations were kept in check by a simple relationship between energy supply rates and energy harvest rates. It’s the same relationship that will limit the distribution and abundance of the colonizers.

Stump

Your statement which I took issue with was clear enough, Stump: (Bolding mine)

"Ecological concerns have gone from fringe to mainstream in just a few decades... and not because of industry or gov't. The big enviro groups can and should take full credit for that shift in thinking".

Nonsense, neither the Valhalla group nor WC2 are anywhere near the size of the biggies such as Sierra Club, Greenpeace nor Suzuki Foundation (DSF), and NONE of those groups were prominent in BC prior to the Nineties.

And with the sole exception of DSF and its TV and other media promotions, NONE of those groups have had much impact upon the enironmental consciousness of the BC public.

KWD

You deliberately misquote me and use that to shoot me down. please compare what I wrote to your response.

I accurately claimed that Coastal aboriginals had practiced sustainability in their harvest of salmon, which is indisputable. There were very likely instances of other resources too, which makes sense, given their time to observe cause and effect.

All that disappears when new technology comes along, effecting change at such a scale and so fast that it quickly becomes too late to restore former abundance once it is noticed.

I've read one account of of the introduction of the horse to the Plains Indians beginning in the mid 1500s. This saw the rise of a few supertribes who became extremely powerful and who made a living by following the buffalo all year long. The writer, extrapolating from the remains at Buffalo jumps, estimated that the huge herds would have been reduced to remnants by the end of the 1800s even without the coming of the white man.

Aboriginals in Canada's interior had to be limited in their beaver harvests, since with their old methods prior to the steel trap, there was never a danger of overharvest, and thus they had never needed to learn how to harvest sustainably.

There's plenty of such instances, and it is a story as old as humankind - and as we are seeing again today, one we seem unable to learn.

JStog

There's simply so much misinformation in your response that I'll leave mine until tomorrow, in order to sort out what deserves addressing.

ME2

Misinformation is exactly what I endeavour to avoid.
I look forward to your response.