T - Association of BC Forest Professionals

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

RPF and RFT Online Exam Preparation Courses 

“The course 

readings, 

assignments and 

weekly exams 

prepared me for 

understanding what 

the exam questions 

were asking and how 

to properly formulate 

answers/responses 

to the questions.” 

— George Buis, CNC student 

(Earned highest mark on the 

2006 RFT registration exam.) 

Prepare online 

from anywhere! 

2 BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL | MAY - JUNE 2007 

Need help getting prepared for your RPF or your RFT exam? The 

College of New Caledonia Lakes District Campus is now offering 

Registered Professional Forester and Registered Forest 

Technologist online exam preparation courses. These highly 

reputable RPF and RFT preparation courses were designed by 

Ben Wilson, an experienced Registered Professional Forester. 

Courses begin June 11, 2007. 

• RPF tuition fee $595 

• RFT tuition fee $450 

Taxes and supplies are included in the fee. 

Sign up soon! 

For more information 

• Call us at 250.692.1700 

• Visit www.cnc.bc.ca/Campuses/Lakes_District_Campus 

and see the “What’s New” section. 

Register now, seats are limited! 

CNC – Burns Lake 

Box 5000, Burns Lake, BC V0J 1E0 

Phone: 250.692.1700 Fax: 250.692.1750 

E-mail: lksdist@cnc.bc.ca Website: www.cnc.bc.ca 

College of New Caledonia 

L A K E S D I S T R I C T C A M P U S

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

� �� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

We very much enjoyed ExpoFor at Harrison 

Hot Springs and would like to congratulate the 

host committee for an excellent conference. 

A recurring topic at ExpoFor, mentioned by 

both speakers and delegates, concerned the 

recruitment and retention of students into 

forestry programs and graduates into forestry 

careers. There was a lot of talk about what we, 

as forest professionals, should do to encourage 

more young people to enter the profession. 

We are employed by the UBC Faculty 

of Forestry in student services and 

recruitment, and we feel that there is 

another aspect to this issue that was not 

mentioned at the conference. Two of 

the biggest barriers to recruitment and 

retention of students and workers are: 

• the public perception of forest practices 

and the state of forestry; and, 

• working conditions for many graduates. 

Put in Your Two Cents 

The BC Forest Professional letters’ section 

is intended primarily for feedback on recent 

articles and for brief statements about 

current association, professional or forestry 

issues. The editor reserves the right to 

edit and condense letters and encourages 

readers to keep letters to 300 words. 

Anonymous letters are not accepted. 

Send letters to: 

Editor, BC Forest Professional 

Association of BC Forest Professionals 

1030 – 1188 West Georgia St 

Vancouver, BC V6E 4A2 

Fax: 604.687.3264 

editor@abcfp.ca 

Please refer to our website for guidelines 

to help make sure your submission gets 

published in BC Forest Professional. 

It is not difficult to convince students that 

forestry is a dynamic and exciting career (the 

difficulty is finding the resources to get to 

the students). The real barrier is the parents 

and the teachers and the overall perception 

of forestry by the public. The messages that 

the public receive about forestry include: 

another mill closure, another death in 

the forest, Softwood Lumber Agreement, 

mountain pine beetle devastation, etc. What 

parent wants their child to enter a field 

referred to as a ‘sunset industry?’ We need 

to articulate a new and positive message. 

The other barrier, particularly to retention 

of workers, is the job conditions for many 

graduates upon entering the workforce. In 

speaking with one of the new RPFs at the 

Inductee Luncheon at ExpoFor, we discovered 

that she has been employed by a major forest 

company in BC for eight years (initially as 

a student, latterly as a full-time employee 

after graduation). However, despite her years 

of service to this employer, and her recent 

RPF designation, she is employed under a 

short-term contract so that the employer 

can avoid paying benefits and can terminate 

her employment easily. This bright and 

enthusiastic young forester deserves better. 

In summary, if we want to attract and 

retain the best and the brightest, we will need: 

• resources to develop and deliver a new 

image for forestry (in the broadest sense); 

and, 

• employers to properly recognize and 

value their human resources. 

Candace Parsons, rpf 

Lesley Fettes, fit 

Vancouver 

MAY - JUNE 2007 | BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL 

Letters 

Attracting the Best and Brightest to Forestry Let’s Get the Most out of EBM 

Am I the fool rushing in where angels fear to 

tread? It seems to me that the several interesting 

articles on ecosystem-based management 

(EBM) (BCFP March/April 2007) all miss an 

important point and instead beg the question: 

What do we want from the land? EBM 

is currently the most advanced technique 

for achieving a land-use objective, but it 

is a means to an end not the end itself. 

Perhaps because agreement on what 

communities hope to achieve on and from 

their land is seldom discussed explicitly, 

EBM does not contain a clear definition of 

objectives and is only a partial response to the 

manifold problems of sustainable land use. 

As the old Newfie saying goes, “If you don’t 

know where you’re going, any road will do.” 

To get the most out of EBM, we need to 

determine what the community wants to 

gain from its land—whether it be to serve as a 

carbon sink, catchment protection, recreation, 

spiritual refreshment, wildlife habitat or 

wood fibre. Once this determination has 

been made, EBM can be developed to reach 

the goal the community has for its land. 

Roy Strang, rpf(ret) 

Surrey 

5

LThis report is an excerpt from Paul’s 

speech at ExpoFor 2007 in Harrison 

Hot Springs. The speech was delivered 

to attendees on February 23, 2007. 

Like the leaders and change agents of 

the past, council is not satisfied with the 

status quo. Consider for example, a part of 

the vision expressed by the external com- 

munications task force in its 2004 report: 

• The ABCFP is recognized and respected 

as the most credible and trusted source of 

information and expertise; and, 

• The ABCFP offers a balance of 

professional opinion that results in 

considerable influence on the direction of 

forest policy. 

As the kids in the backseat say, 

“Are we there yet?” 

No, not yet. In fact a number of our 

members and members of the public feel 

that our association has been rather risk 

averse in the past. We’ve done wonders on 

the regulatory front and managed issues 

with great care and dignity. But we aren’t the 

first call for government, industry or even 

the media when it comes to forest policy or 

forest issues. Our capacity report (Increasing 

Value to Members: Capacity Changes at the 

ABCFP)of last year suggested that we take 

more of a leadership approach in the future. 

So, how do we do that? First, council is 

adopting the title of the external communica- 

tions task force report as a theme to lead 

us through the 61 st year of this association 

– Recognition, Respect and Influence. We’ll be 

taking more of a leadership approach – still 

managing issues, but looking for opportuni- 

ties to lead forest policy rather than keep 

track of it. We’ll be taking more risks. Does 

this mean we become abrasive to government 

and industry to gain independence? 

Do we start firing out radical statements on 

forest policy simply to shock the world? No. 

President’s 

Report 

By Paul Knowles, RPF 

Recognition, Respect & Influence 

Rather than simply take risks, we will 

become adept at risk management. Not 

only won’t we take any big, uncalculated 

risks this year, we’ll also keep an eye on 

the possible consequences of those risks 

that appear to be small. But we will take 

risks. We will strive toward that goal of 

recognition, respect and influence. 

With that theme in mind, here are the 

top five priorities for the coming year: 

1. increased profile and advocacy; 

2. professional reliance; 

3. improving technologist integration; 

4. strengthening relationships with our 

stakeholders; and, 

5. the Continuing Competency Program. 

I will only address 

the first priority now, 

and I will talk more 

about the others in 

upcoming President’s 

Reports in BC Forest Professional magazine 

Under the priority of increased 

profile and advocacy, we have most of the 

structure we need in place and simply 

need support it to build momentum. 

• First, we have a staff group who is 

really excited about advocacy and have 

demonstrated the ability to take advantage 

of opportunities. 

• Leading them, we have a new executive 

director who has significant experience 

gaining visibility and profile. 

• We have two key reports that show us the 

way – the 2004 External Communications 

Task Force report, and the 2006 capacity 

report. 

• We have the stewardship advisory 

committee which was responsible for the 

species at risk paper, the fire paper, the 

report on the status of the inventory in 

the province and continues to focus on 

important topics for the association to 

address. 


As the kids in the backseat 

say, “Are we there yet?” 

• Finally, we have a council with a theme and 

vision of advocacy. This council will look 

ahead at what it takes to achieve our vision 

of recognition, respect and influence. It 

will focus on the strategic level. 

There have been great efforts made by past 

councils in this direction, and the 60th council 

will not only keep this effort up, it will make 

advocacy its top priority for the coming year. 

However, a well-designed advocacy 

structure would be squandered if we didn’t 

use it to achieve something incredible. We 

need to set challenging new goals for the 

profession in BC. Council will be renewing the 

strategic plan this year, and we will consider 

the public and First Nations interests when 

setting goals that will take our profession to 

ambitious new heights. 

Here are a few 

examples of work 

our council and staff 

will follow through 

with on the advocacy front in 2007: 

• We will publish a report on the state of the 

inventory in the province. (Since I gave 

this speech at ExpoFor, the report has 

been published, but the ABCFP has not 

finished with inventory work for the year). 

• We will publish a paper on the oil and gas 

industry interface with forestry practices 

in the northeast. (Again, the first step 

of publishing the paper has been done; 

however, more work is needed in this area 

in 2007). 

• We will explore the issue of stocking 

standards under FRPA. (A request for 

proposal was issued in April 2007). 

• We will publish a revised statement 

on professional reliance principles for 

operational plans and declarations. 

There you have it, our top priorities 

under the theme of recognition, respect 

and influence. I’d appreciate getting your 

thoughts on our goals. Please don’t hesitate 

to contact me at: Paul.S.Knowles@gov.bc.ca.

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

� �� 

� �� 

� �� 

� �� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�

Association 

News 

60th Council Areas of Responsibility 

At their first meeting at ExpoFor, members of the 60th 

council chose the following areas of responsibility: 

Governance and Emerging Issues Paul Knowles, rpf 

External Relations and Council Formation Bob Craven, rpf 

Act Compliance Al Balogh, rpf 

Admissions Geoff Helfrich, rpf 

Communications and Member Relations Heather Rice, rft 

Finance Bronwen Beedle, rpf 

Forest Stewardship Richard Brouwer, rpf 

Forest Technologist Integration Johnathan Lok, rft 

Professional Development John Hatalcik, rpf 

Professional Practice Diana Wood, rpf 

ABCFP Welcomes New Staff 

Baljinder Kullar joined the ABCFP 

team in March. She takes over from 

Amanda Molson who left to pursue 

other interests. Baljinder has a 

bachelor of business administration 

from Capilano College and worked 

for Empire Theatres immediately 

before coming to the association. In 

her position as registration coordinator, 

Baljinder is looking forward to 

helping members with their queries. 

She can be reached at: 604.331.2327 

or via e-mail at: bkullar@abcfp.ca. 

ABCFP Member Honoured 

Congratulations to Trent V. Meyer, RPF, who was the recipient of the PJJ 

Hemphill Award for engineering excellence at the Ministry of Forests 

and Range Provincial Engineering Meeting in February of 2007. This 

award is presented annually to a deserving individual or individuals 

who have demonstrated engineering excellence through tangible 

improvements or engineering innovation in delivering the Ministry of 

Forests and Range engineering program. Trent was selected due to his 

deep commitment to the highest standards, both technical and professional, 

and his numerous accomplishments in the field of forest road 

engineering. 


MOU with Biologists Marks New Era in Relations 

ABCFP outgoing president Bob Craven, RPF, and CAB director Rob Thomson, RPBio, 

sign the MOU at ExpoFor 2007 in February. 

The College of Applied Biology (CAB) of BC and the ABCFP have signed 

a memorandum of understanding (MOU)to guide our future relations. 

The MOU recognizes that the two organizations have overlapping 

practices in some cases, and that each recognizes the professionalism 

of the other. The MOU forms a joint committee of biologists and forest 

professionals who will continue to pursue joint initiatives of common 

interest. 

ABCFP Welcomes Results of Judicial Review 

The following is excerpted from a news released issued by the ABCFP 

on February 14, 2007. You can read the full release on the website by 

selecting News and Events on the About Us pull-down menu on the 

homepage. Next, select Media and finally, click on News Releases. 

The Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) received 

the direction it wanted from BC Supreme Court on a complaint 

launched against a member by the Sunshine Coast Conservation 

Association (SCCA). 

“Because the relevant section of the Foresters Act is open to 

interpretation, I felt strongly that the association should take 

on the costs of clarifying the legislation not a member,” says 

Jerome Marburg, LLB, ABCFP general counsel and registrar. 

“This is particularly true when one of the potential consequences 

of proceeding without the law being clarified is that 

the association would engage in prosecutorial misconduct. 

We feel that these questions should always be resolved at the 

expense of the regulatory body rather than the member.” 

“Since 2001, we’ve had 16 complaints of which only six, including 

the SCCA complaint, were from sources other than members 

of the association,” says Marburg. “Of the six non-member 

complaints – one was dismissed by the complaint resolution 

committee, two were resolved through alternative dispute resolution 

methods, one was dismissed after an investigation and one 

was referred to a mediator and settled after an investigation.” 

As for the SCCA complaint, the registrar will now reconsider it in light 

of the direction given by the court. 

M

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

Viewpoints 

By Marc Steynen, RPF, and 

Kim Menounos, RPF 

Are We Ready for Urban Forestry? 

Anyone exposed to urban forestry may 

be keenly aware of the central message that 

proponents of urban forestry and arbori- 

culture espouse: trees are good and their 

benefits are particularly pronounced in urban 

settings. As forest professionals, these facts 

may be intuitive and do not need further 

reiteration. Yet, municipalities continue to 

struggle to ensure the health of the ecosystem 

components and to balance environmental 

values against human-centred development. 

Beyond aesthetics, trees perform important 

functions that protect and enhance urban 

environmental attributes. Trees clean the air 

by absorbing pollutants and releasing oxygen. 

They reduce storm water runoff and erosion, 

buffer winds, temper climate, reduce energy 

needs, create wildlife habitat, and moderate 

visual and noise pollution. In these ways, 

trees contribute to a community’s economy 

while subtly increasing property values and 

enhancing a city’s commercial infrastructure. 

Most importantly, the urban forest enriches 

the places where we work and play, improving 

our quality of life. Clearly, there are great 

advantages to maintaining, improving and 

protecting urban forests. 

This message is one that urban forestry 

practitioners are eager to convey. Rapidly 

growing urban populations are placing 

increasing demands upon a finite pool of 

environmental resources. And the benefits of 

the urban forest extend beyond the physical 

environment. The psychophysiological effects 

of vegetation in an urban environment 

have been measured and show a significant 

improvement in subjects’ perceptions of 

well-being . The quality of life of the human 

inhabitants of this urban ecosystem is directly 

related to the health of the natural environment 

around them. 

Unfortunately, urban forests have historically 

been overlooked and, as a consequence, 

immensely undervalued. Our perceptions of, 

and attitudes towards, urban forests continue 

to result in actions that place preeminence of 

grey over green infrastructure and threaten 

the continued accrual of benefits from urban 

forests. Until recently, the urban forest was 

barely recognized by all levels of government 

as anything more than a series of street trees. 

Little thought was put into larger issues such 

as integrated pest management, species diversity 

across the urban landscape and preservation 

of urban wildlife habitat to scratch 

the surface. As municipalities become more 

aware of the value of this resource, they are 

increasingly aware of the need for specialized 

tools. These include comprehensive strategic 

plans, tree protection bylaws with clout and 

regulations that recognize and integrate 

multiple layers of government. 

On the plus side, some very positive 

movements are afoot which may help towards 

the goal of realizing the benefits offered by 

a healthy urban forest. Urban forests have 

recently been declared to be Canada’s ninth 

forest region and, for the first time, have been 

included in Canada’s National Forest Strategy. 

Regulations at the municipal level are beginning 

to catch up with the myriad of issues facing 

urban forests. Municipalities are initiating 

strategic urban forest plans, implementing 

tree inventory systems and hiring the necessary 

forest professionals, arborists and other 

specialists to ensure the sustainability of the 

urban forest. These top-down approaches 

have begun to create recognition of the values 

10 

BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL | MAY - JUNE 2007 

and benefits that urban forests offer nearly 

80% of Canada’s population. 

As with natural forests, it is essential to 

look at the big picture to ensure a sustainable 

urban forest environment. Arborists are essential 

for tree care at the site level, but forest 

professionals are uniquely trained to strategically 

manage for a wide diversity of urban 

values at the landscape level. Working within 

the legislation governing both forestry and 

communities, they are able to liaise between 

urban stakeholders, municipal managers and 

the public to ensure the incorporation of an 

intense array of issues. The biggest challenge 

urban forest professionals face is balancing 

public opinions against the need to implement 

management protocols. A team of skilled 

urban tree and forest specialists is critical as it 

allows urban trees to function as part of larger 

natural systems, instead of isolated landscape 

elements. 

Clearly, efforts need to be made to engage 

forestry organizations, municipalities and 

communities to ensure that trees become a 

valued component of the urban environment. 

Forest professionals have an ever increasing 

role to play as the interface between forests and 

communities. They are uniquely positioned to 

communicate the rewards of and advocate for 

green infrastructure in a manner that ensures 

a sustained public desire for urban forests. � 

Marc Steynen, RPF, is a forester and certified 

arborist with the City of Prince George. E-mail: 

msteynen@city.pg.bc.ca. Kim Menounos, RPF, is 

the urban forester for the City of Prince George. 

She manages the Prince George Community Forest 

and the Mountain Pine Beetle Tree Removal 

Program for the City along with other related 

projects. E-mail: kmenounos@city.pg.bc.ca

Forestry on the Edge 

Several years ago, a new woodlot licence 

was advertised on the outskirts of Revelstoke. 

This woodlot was composed of several 

parcels–all of them close to town, most with 

private homes or acreages adjacent, and one 

sandwiched between Revelstoke and Mount 

Revelstoke National Park. The residents adjacent 

to the proposed woodlot were worried, 

the City of Revelstoke had some concerns and 

a major water licensee was miffed. I think it 

made for some interesting times at the forest 

district office. 

After much ado, my business partner and 

I became the proud new licensees for this 

woodlot. We, along with our families, have 

now been managing the woodlot for six years 

and the interesting times at the district office 

have continued. Although the times have been 

interesting, they have not been too difficult. 

We have managed to coexist amicably 

with our neighbours and the multitude 

of forest users and still run a successful 

woodlot operation. The list of issues, other 

resources and other licensed and unlicensed 

users is long. They include adjoining private 

landowners (about 15), water licences 

(about 20), a major Nordic ski area, tenured 

mountain bike trails (2), an adjacent trail 

ride B&B, an adjoining National Park, the 

adjoining city of Revelstoke, interested people 

(hundreds), and people who live within sight 

(about 8,000). Needless to say, when it came 

time to cut our first tree, I was worried. 

It was obvious from the start that our 

management of this area would have to go 

well beyond the trees. We would have to excel 

in timber resource management and ensure 

that other users’ needs were met as well. To 

help us with the latter, we have an advisory 

committee. This committee is composed 

of a regional district representative and 

several residents who live near the woodlot. 

The committee advises us on operations and 

planning and helped create our management 

plan and Forest Development Plan. 

The advisory committee has been productive 

at bringing to light many potential issues 

so they can be dealt with before becoming contentious 

issues. However, it is not a substitute 

for contact with affected clubs and individuals. 

Revelstoke has always been an outdoor 

sports mecca and that has translated into 

lots of recreational use of the surrounding 

lands. One group of users, the Nordic ski 

club, maintains a large and popular crosscountry 

ski area that overlaps a portion of our 

woodlot. Our relationship with the ski club 

has not been challenging at all. We consider 

the needs of the skiers in all of our harvest 

plans. It can create some small difficulties 

– particularly in ruling out winter logging on 

part of our woodlot – but for the most part, 

small-scale forestry and Nordic skiing are 

compatible and even mutually beneficial, 

as the ski club helps us maintain roads. 

We have several bike trails built and 

maintained by a local mountain bike club 

in our woodlot. With minor changes to 

our harvest plans, we have been able to 

maintain a good relationship with this 

group. This arrangement has not created any 

significant forest management challenges. 

Being close to town also means we are 

highly visible from town, so our operations 

must be governed by stringent visual quality 

objectives. We deal with this by using partial 

cut silviculture systems – mostly group and single 

tree selection – to minimize visual impacts. 

There are lots of other potential issues too. 

Some that come to mind immediately are managing 

fire hazard, disposing of landing debris, 

public liability concerns, visual quality on a 

small scale (for example, the view from across 

the road on a neighbour’s driveway rather 

than from an ‘official’ viewpoint in town) 

While most of our interactions with 


Viewpoints 

By Del Williams, RPF 

our neighbours and other resource users 

have been good, being close to town invites 

abusers as well. We have picked up many 

loads of trash over the years. Some dumpers 

are incredibly blatant – who would have 

the gall to take multiple truckloads of old 

asphalt shingles and dump them? We also 

had a case of a midnight, help-yourself gravel 

operation in a plantation! And, we have to 

watch for ‘wood whackers’ – those endearing 

individuals who take firewood and leave 

beer cans and fast food wrappers in return. 

Our six years of forest management on the 

edge of town has produced several thousand 

cubic metres of wood without confrontation 

and bitterness. This can be largely attributed to 

communicating with the affected parties and 

making changes to accommodate their needs. 

In addition, there are many little things we do 

that help our relationship with our neighbours. 

We cooperate with the school forestry class, 

we provide field trips for teachers’ professional 

development days, we lay out firewood 

on our landings for clubs and individuals, 

we ensure that our roads and landings are 

‘landscaped’ to avoid an industrial look. 

Being on the edge of town creates some 

uncertainly for the future. While we continue 

work with the advisory committee and local 

individuals, the town continues to grow. 

Will it eventually engulf our woodlot? Will 

our lovely spaced and pruned stands make 

way for condos? Time will tell, but we feel 

the best way to prevent this is to do the best 

work on the woodlot that we can. � 

Del Williams, RPF, is a forester working in Revelstoke. 

In addition to his position as operations 

forester with the Revelstoke Community Forest 

Corporation (RCFC), he is a woodlot licensee. 

Prior to joining RCFC, Del worked in a variety of 

forestry positions throughout BC – most memorably 

with the Forest Service on the Queen Charlotte 

Islands. Del is a graduate of both the BCIT and 

UBC forestry programs. 

11

Chainsaws in the Cathedral* – 

A Designer Forest for Stanley Park 

Morning the crumpled land the hills 

heaving up the sky the rain 

beating down like blood the darkness 

lifting from the trees the waste place 

where trees were leaving 

a gray residue of mist 

* exerpted with permission from Peter Trower’s 

Chainsaws In The Cathedral – Collected Woods Poems, 1964-1998 

Ekstasis Editions, 1999. 

F 

Forest professionals have become first 

responders following the storms that hit 

Stanley Park last December. What became 

clear when the wind abated was that over 

10% of the park’s 400 hectares had been 

flattened, shredded, uprooted and changed 

for the foreseeable future. It was a natural 

disturbance, but unexpected by the public 

who fail to understand the nature of forests 

and ecological succession. In fact, the 

park was extensively studied in the 1980s 

by MacMillan Bloedel foresters who had 

predicted such an event based on their 

evaluation of forest health at that time. 

But this storm was not altogether an ill 

wind. The damage created an incredible 

opportunity for recovery – a renewal that will 

be augmented by human intervention. That 

recovery will not only restore Stanley Park 

to its former glory, but will also showcase 

the role of forestry in the modern age to an 

audience of over six million people each year. 

To put the magnitude of the storm into 

perspective, a number of open-grown leafless 

lombardy poplars that had been planted after 

Hurricane Freida in 1964 were uprooted next 

to the Prospect Point picnic site. These trees 

were growing in coarse-textured, well-drained 

soil and had broken taproots 20 cm in diameter 

that were pulled over a metre out of the soil. 

Planning and operating in the forest today 

is often about much more than timber production. 

The ‘designer forest’ that can become a 

gladed ski run, a golf course, a riparian zone, 

or a park, is within the ability of today’s forest 

professional to design and put on the ground. 

In most cases, those forests will be very 

different from the timber production forests 

that have historically been our objective. 

The structure and function of these designer 

forests, from both a biological and a social 

perspective, are the drivers of both our plans 

and our actions. 

In the case of Stanley Park, what looked 

like a difficult undertaking at first glance will 

actually be quite simple to plan and execute. 

The greatest challenges are in maintaining 

community support for the chosen actions and 

in ‘doing no harm.’ The financial and moral 

support to date have been overwhelming: 

$9 million has been raised to assist in the 

recovery, and a further $1.5 million is lying 

on the ground in potential timber value. 

With that much support, expectations are 

running high. One set of supporters asks why 

we haven’t gotten the job done yet – another 

thinks we should study the park for six months 

before we start. As usual, the best approach 

lies somewhere in the middle – with a 

balance between urgency and care. 

12 

BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL | MAY - JUNE 2007 

I have been asked to serve as project 

manager for the Vancouver Board of Parks 

and Recreation to assist with this designer 

forest project, but obviously I cannot do it 

all on my own. I am being assisted and supported 

by a team of forest professionals, 

geoscientists, ecologists, biologists and 

even psychologists. The days when we were 

sent out and expected to assess and solve 

all of the problems on our own, are gone. 

The array of contemplated actions is being 

governed by risk assessment and management 

designed to minimize and reduce: 

- further blowdown, 

- fire hazard, 

- geotechnical and slope stability hazards, 

- biological hazards such as invasive plants 

and insects; and, 

- hazards to workers on the ground and to 

the public. 

Once the risk management work is completed, 

the task of restoring the forest will begin. 

The overall objective will be to recreate a 

fully functioning indigenous forest on most of 

the damaged areas. A portion of the area where 

risks can be managed will be retained unaltered 

for education and demonstration. Other 

areas will be cut, leaving trees to lay on the 

ground and the residual stand underplanted. 

In the majority of areas, the blow-down mate- 

Photo Credit: Greg Dash, Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation

ial will be recovered and utilized. Remaining 

trees and snags within the blowdown areas 

will be retained where it is safe to do so. 

The major geotechnical hazard is the escarpment 

above the seawall, where upturned 

trees are hanging over the seawall or have slid 

down onto it. The proposal here is to walk an 

excavator along the top of the escarpment and 

remove these trees as well as the associated 

overhanging root wads and organic soils. 

Bioengineering will be used to stabilize the escarpment 

once this work has been completed. 

Recovery of the blowdown material will 

be done by hoe-chucking to existing roads 

and upgraded trails. Finning is supplying a 

hoe-chucker with saw attachment which will 

minimize the need for workers on the ground. 

Hoe-chucking will enable the loading and 

hauling work to be done at night to reduce 

Photo Credit: Greg Dash 

conflicts with park visitors; however it will require 

dry soil conditions in order to minimize 

damage to the forest floor. 

Logs from Stanley Park are already in 

great demand and are expected to be used in 

a number of legacy projects associated with 

the 2010 Olympics and the new Vancouver 

Convention Centre. A marketing strategy is being 

developed which will enable small business 

and home craftsmen to have an opportunity to 

purchase some of the material. 

There is a great team of individuals and 

organizations working on this project. The 

overall effort has been guided by a steering 

committee which includes ABCFP members 

Dwight Yochim, RPF; Bob Cavill, RPF; and Ric 

Slaco, RPF, as well as operational, geotechnical 

and ecological expertise. The chair of the 

steering committee is Jim Lowden, director of 


Viewpoints 

By Paul Lawson, RPF 

the Stanley District of the Vancouver Board of 

Parks and Recreation. 

Other organizations involved in the Stanley 

Park project include UBC, PheroTech, Forestry 

Canada and the CFIA which are cooperating in 

monitoring the area for outbreaks of both native 

and exotic insects. Silviculture prescriptions, 

fire hazard assessment and fuel management 

plans are being prepared by B.A. Blackwell and 

Associates of North Vancouver. Field geotechnical 

advice is being provided by Geo Wise 

Engineering of North Vancouver and danger 

tree assessments are being done by Diamond 

Head Consulting of Vancouver. The new forest 

is being supplied and installed courtesy of PRT 

Inc. and Brinkman Reforestation Ltd. 

Together we are restoring Stanley Park and 

taking the opportunity to educate the public 

about the profession of forestry. � 

13 

Photo courtesy of Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation

Viewpoints 

By Bruce Blackwell, RPF, RPBio 

FForest fire management within the 

Forest Fire Management within an Urban Forestry Context 

context of urban forestry has, in recent years, 

been the focus in many communities in 

British Columbia. Community leaders and 

residents have come to realize that forests 

within and adjacent to their communities 

pose varying degrees of forest-fire risk 

that require active management. Forest 

professionals are best equipped to take on 

the responsibility for this management. 

The management of community green 

spaces historically has been designed as a 

static process and little consideration has 

been given to the temporal dynamics of forest 

succession and disturbances such as wind 

storms, fires, diseases and pathogens. There 

is often limited public understanding of the 

complex forest processes that can influence 

the small to medium-sized fragmented 

forest parcels within an urban setting. 

The appropriate management response to 

a given forest-fire risk profile is based on the 

combination and level of emphasis of several 

key elements: communication and education, 

training, emergency response, structure 

protection and vegetation management. For 

example, in an urban forest area with a highrisk 

profile, equal weight may be given to all elements. 

Alternatively, in this same high-risk example, 

active intervention through vegetation 

management may be given a higher emphasis. 

This change in emphasis is based on the values 

at risk (consequence) and the level of desired 

protection required. In a low-risk situation, the 

emphasis may be on communication and education 

combined with emergency response and 

training. In other words, varieties of management 

responses in different jurisdictions and/ 

or within the same jurisdiction are appropriate 

and can be defined by the wildfire-risk profile. 

In communities throughout the province, 

new urban parkland or green space is often 

acquired by donations from new developments. 

These areas may not be suitable for housing 

development because of issues such as steep 

slopes or because they are environmentally 

sensitive areas. These same areas typically have 

poor access, steep terrain with limited suppression 

capability and an increased probability 

of erosion and slope failure following a fire. 

Communities often inherit these parcels without 

a clear understanding of fire and other forest 

disturbance related risks. The consequences 

of disturbance events in these parcels are 

heightened by their close proximity to homes, 

businesses and community infrastructure. 

Another key issue that is often overlooked 

when considering urban forest fire management 

is the protection of critical infrastructure. 

Critical infrastructure can include, but is 

not limited to, emergency communication 

equipment, water treatment facilities, and 

hydro-electric transmission and distribution 

networks. These types of facilities are all considered 

essential for community sustainability 

both during and after a fire, and the ability of a 

community to provide basic services would be 

impaired by the loss or damage of these facilities. 

Fire management planning and response 

must be focused on the protection of these 

facilities to limit the impact of an urban fire. 

A review of bylaws in fire-prone areas 

of the province points to a general lack of 

understanding about urban development in 

areas at risk from forest fires. Many recent 

fires in British Columbia have demonstrated 

that it is not just a forest in close proximity to 

homes that causes ignitions and fire-related 

losses, but that embers from spotting (air-borne 

burning material from distant forest stands) 

can alight on vulnerable surfaces and create an 

ignition within urban housing developments. 

Many communities throughout BC contain 

developments constructed with materials that 

are vulnerable to spotting ignition. This issue 

could be largely addressed by creating bylaws 

that enforce the use of fire-rated roofing and 

building materials in areas of the community 

that are vulnerable to spotting. Other bylaws 

that are considered important in terms of 

wildland fire protection include those that deal 

with landscaping vegetation and materials, 

appropriate setbacks from forest vegetation and 

emergency response and evacuation access. 

Bylaws associated with urban forests have 

often been focused on tree protection. More 

recently, communities have come to realize 

that forest succession has resulted in a growing 

management problem associated with older, 

defective trees that are a public safety hazard. 

Structured hazard tree programs have been 

developed within a number of communities 

and the recent mountain pine beetle outbreak 

has alerted many municipalities and regional 

districts to this specific problem. In areas of 

moderate to high forest fire risk, these same 


hazard tree programs could and should be 

broadened to include a standard of fuel 

management that inventories and manages 

identified fuel and fire risk in urban forests. 

Given the public’s expectation of 

sustainable forest management and sound 

forest stewardship, it is important to establish 

guidelines and standards for fuel management 

within urban forests. The significant variability 

of forest ecosystems and the related management 

of specific forest habitats require quality 

inventories of sensitive ecosystems that could 

be negatively impacted by fuel treatments. 

Fuel and fire mitigation treatments must be 

designed to limit impacts on these areas while, 

at the same time, providing appropriate levels 

of protection from negative fire effects. 

The complexity of fire and forest management 

within the urban forest emphasizes the 

need for a broad and comprehensive community 

based communication and education 

program that incorporates local government, 

businesses and individual residents. Support 

for active management within the urban 

forest will be limited and may even stall in 

the absence of a sound communication effort 

that clearly explains the relationship between 

changing forest succession, disturbance 

ecology and fuel management in a specific 

urban park or green space. Websites, local 

council meetings, community meetings 

and field trips are all considered appropriate 

communication vehicles to outline forest 

dynamics and related fire and forest management 

concerns within the urban context. 

It is clear that forest professionals have a 

responsibility to communicate, advise and 

design appropriate strategies and management 

responses to the complex issue of urban 

forest fire management. To succeed, active 

management of fire risk in an urban setting 

must be based on a sound understanding of 

disturbance ecology, forest structure and 

function, community values and needs, and the 

policy, planning, regulatory and operational 

framework of a given community. � 

Bruce Blackwell M.Sc. RPF, RPBio is a forest 

ecologist and principal of B.A. Blackwell and 

Associates Ltd. and has been involved in forest 

fire management in British Columbia since 1979. 

He has spent his career working as a consultant 

throughout British Columbia, Alberta and Alaska 

and lives in North Vancouver with his wife Denise 

and three children Laura, Heather and Alan.

One Recipe 

for Urban 

Forestry 

Start with a little mining town, population 

7,000, nestled up against the lower slopes 

of the Purcell Mountains on the edge of the 

Rocky Mountain Trench. Extend its municipal 

boundary to encompass its ski hill and golf 

course and, in the process, annex a big chunk 

of Crown land (800 hectares) that lies between 

them. Make this a topographically interesting 

and ecologically diverse piece of Crown land 

that starts at the 975 metre elevation with 

ponderosa pine/bunchgrass and climbs 650 

metres through the Interior Douglas Fir Zone 

and into the Montane Spruce Zone. Toss in a 

number of kettles, ridges and wetlands, some 

interrupted streams and patches of cedar, 

spruce and sub-alpine fir. A significant archaeological 

site or two would go nicely as well. 

Criss-cross the area with a network of 

abandoned mining and logging roads and 

dozens of kilometres of volunteer-built 

footpaths. Sprinkle in a generous selection 

of wildlife including elk, moose, rubber boas 

and northern alligator lizards. Add the nonprofit 

Kimberley Nature Park Society with 350 

members and a passion for trail maintenance, 

interpretive walks and planning. Throw in 

a supportive city council which applies for 

and receives a License of Occupation from 

the province to use the area as a park and 

zone it as such in the Official Community 

Plan. Dot the park with mountain bikers. 

Now, remove the mine, the city’s economic 

mainstay, which has exhausted its 

ore, and work instead to build an economy 

based on tourism and lifestyle. 

Just for fun, having suppressed wildfire 

in the park for about 80 years, spice things 

up by constructing a number of new neighborhoods 

along its downwind border. 

While all this is mixing, discover a federally-listed 

endangered sapsucker nesting 

in the park. (Let’s make it the only active 

nest in Canada which lies within a park.) 

Now, pour in a copious amount of 

mountain pine beetle and have the province 

direct the local forest tenure holder to 

deal with it. Make sure that lumber prices 

are in the tank when this happens. 

Liberally coat everything with the fallout 

from the softwood lumber dispute, ensuring 

that the province will not be able to give 

the tenure holder any kind of stumpage 

relief for sensitive and difficult logging. 

Add to the mix a young, local forest professional 

who works for the tenure holder and 

a well-known fire ecologist hired by the city. 

Have the Nature Park Society spend a year 

with them, pouring over maps, going on field 

trips and learning to read silviculture prescriptions 

written in ‘logger-ese.’ Develop a draft 

logging plan for the area that prescribes a 100 

hectare reserve for the sapsucker, a wildlife 

tree patch for rare orchids, the exclusion of 

landings in the park but hundreds of hectares 

of logging down to 200 stems/hectare. Also 

develop a rather expensive post-logging fuel 

reduction plan that requires a great deal of 

hand slashing, chipping and burning. 

Log about 40 hectares of dry, low 

elevation forest to restore ecological 

function and remove some timber. 

Remove the forest professional from the 

mix to pursue opportunities on the coast and 

let things rest for about a year while research is 

done on the sapsucker area. In the meantime 

have the National Trans-Canada Trail organization 

decide on a new route for the trail through 

southern British Columbia. Again, just for fun, 

have it go right through the middle of the park. 

Add a large amount of interface fire financial 

assistance from the province. Oops, I mean 

add a totally inadequate amount of interface 

fire financial assistance from the province. 

Now, have the tenure holder log the 

Nordic ski area, which is adjacent to the 

park, and watch the reaction from local 


Viewpoints 

By Kent Goodwin 

park users (remember to keep your head 

down and wear protective equipment). 

Have the Nature Park Society and city 

council, discuss with the tenure holder the 

possibility of changes to the recipe that would 

involve logging fewer trees, buffering trails, 

and generally sweetening the plan from an 

aesthetic and recreational perspective. Given 

lumber prices and the company’s tenuous 

financial position, have the tenure holder 

resist such suggestions and propose that some 

of the existing sweetening be removed. 

At the suggestion of the fire ecologist, take 

the current recipe and run it through a twoday, 

facilitated, multi-stakeholder workshop. 

In the workshop, model fire behavior on the 

landscape and see how it responds to a variety 

of treatments in the hopes of coming up with 

a new and improved version of the plan. 

Since the workshop does not answer 

a key question about the appropriate 

density of leave trees from an ecological, 

fire and economic perspective, convene a 

technical subcommittee to spend some time 

slicing and dicing the data to come up with 

some recommendations on that issue. 

In the meantime have the tenure holder 

appoint a new forest professional and have 

the Nature Park Society spend another 

few months working with him to try to get 

the other seasonings just right. 

Set the oven timer for 2008 and try 

to get all the ingredients properly mixed 

together by then. Bake over winter. 

Cross your fingers and serve. � 

Kent Goodwin is the president of the Kimberley 

Nature Park Society, a registered non-profit 

organization which has been working for two 

decades to plan, promote and steward the Kimberley 

Nature Park. More information about the 

park and the impending logging can be found on 

the park’s website at www.rockies.net/kimberley/naturepark. 

15

Close Encounters 

of the Public Kind 

With approximately 1,500 hectares of urban forests, the City 

of Prince George has one of the largest urban forests in British 

Columbia. We at TDB Consultants Inc. have worked in about 70 of its 

parks and virtually all of the schools in the area removing mountain 

pine beetle-killed and infested pine. The lodgepole pine tree is the 

predominate conifer species within this area and it’s difficult to 

find a resident of the city who has not been impacted in one way or 

another by the mountain pine beetle damage. The viewscape has 

changed quite dramatically over the past five years and the public’s 

perception of the urban environment has matured as a result. This 

scenario sets up one of the toughest tests of results-based forestry. 

The urban forest is an integral component of our lives, neighbourhoods 

and homes. In urban forestry, the public is our client and their 

interests are diverse, eclectic and often emotionally charged. The privilege 

of professionalism that we, as forest professionals enjoy, binds us 

to certain responsibilities including ensuring that the public’s interest 

is being considered in how we manage the forests. For practising forest 

professionals, defining the public’s interest has always brought to light 

ethical dilemmas, confusion and great difficulty weighing the various 

and often competing values. Sometimes just defining who the public 

actually is can be a challenge. It has been a great question on many 

registration exams in the past and will be on many more in the future! 

Who is the public in urban forestry? They are the people who 

utilize the green spaces of the city for walking their dogs, playing 

with their children, exercising and enjoyment. They drive 

by urban forests on the way to work or in their travels, they look 

out of their kitchen windows at the trees in the greenbelt or park 

behind their houses. They have values attached to these forests, 

stands and trees. So how do we manage for these values? 

The level of awareness and education of the public is integral 

to this process and has evolved over the past five years in part due 

to the pine beetle harvesting activities. Urban forest professionals 

must be acutely aware of these factors and balance them accordingly 

in an adaptive and flexible process. It is not uncommon for people 

to call out over their fences and ask why a tree was felled (or wasn’t 

felled) or if we could help with the beetle-killed trees in their yard. 

Public involvement in urban forest activities, such as beetle-tree 

removal, has evolved over the past five years from one of unclear intentions, 

to one of awareness and progress. The public receives information 

packages, door knockers and media notices on a regular basis at 

their homes. We provide the public with websites, e-mail addresses and 

contact numbers to talk to our personnel and give them the ability to 

meet supervisors on site for a ‘one-on-one’ review. Radio and newspaper 

stories have been used regularly to inform and educate our clients 

in the city. These efforts have increased the public’s level of awareness 


and knowledge of why and how these activities are carried out and have 

offered realistic examples rather than set unrealistic expectations. 

Harvesting in urban areas requires a special touch. Activities 

such as falling, skidding, limbing and debris disposal require 

specialized skills and equipment to work in the urban environment. 

Predominantly, very small-scale mechanized equipment in combination 

with hand-falling and innovative techniques have allowed for 

increased retention in these sensitive areas. Many of these green 

spaces are restrictive due to their proximity to private residences, 

parks, schools etc. Public walkways, overhead power and telephone 

lines, playground equipment and high-traffic areas are a constant 

reminder to work crews that public safety is of paramount concern. 

The public has been one of the ultimate wild cards creating 

close encounters of the public kind! We have had instances of the 

public walking through sites when personnel and equipment are 

working, verbally and sometimes physically attacking workers, and 

watching operations up close. These all add an additional aspect 

that is not generally found in industrial forestry practices. 

For the ABCFP member, the application of urban forestry 

brings up key issues on how you deliver your professional

esponsibilities to the public. The public is your client and reflect- 

ing the values of this client is your primary responsibility. 

To engage the public you cannot rely solely on prescriptive forestry 

methods of public consultation, in which there are defined parameters 

for contact and opportunities for input. In the urban environment it 

is incumbent to meet and greet the public across their fences, incor- 

porate their input where possible immediately and in front of them, 

or be present to explain to them why it was not done. This personal 

contact is key for maintaining public support and credibility of any 

urban forest project. In the case of the residents of Prince George, 

this means we have more than 75,000 clients who feel they have the 

right to question or challenge and debate our activities every day. 

One of the interesting ironies of urban forestry, is working around 

other forest professionals who often bring an industrial ethos to a 

non-industrial environment. One incident we have had to deal with in 

Prince George is a forest professional who modified ribboning in the 

field for areas in which we were about to enter and begin operations. 

In conclusion, why do we think that urban forestry is one of the 

ultimate tests of results-based practice? As a professional you are 

literally operating in the client’s backyards, homes, neighborhoods and 

schools. Your work is measured and judged daily in the public forum, in 

the media and in the local coffee shop. It is judged by many individuals 

with diverse perspectives. The judgment is often critical and unpleasant 

and can be incredibly valuable to us as professionals as it helps us define 

the public interest in the urban environment. We often lose sight of the 

simple fact that as professionals under the Forester’s Act, we are mandated 

with managing this valuable public resource. The public is learning 

and watching our work and they give us our right to practise. If the 

results are judged to be poor, the public may opt to take them away. � 


Viewpoints 

By Doug World, RPF; Geoff Helfrich, RPF; 

Steve Nycholat, RFT 

Doug World, RPF, is a long-standing ABCFP member and has been working 

with TDB Consultants Inc. as their senior forester for the past 11 years 

largely in the role of project manager for the City of Prince George and 

school district urban forestry works. 

Geoff Helfrich, RPF, has been a member since 1999 and is currently on 

the ABCFP council. He has been working with TDB Consultants Inc. for 

the past four years as a contract senior forester and as the project manager 

for many of the park and regional district harvesting projects as well 

as FireSmart work. 

Steve Nycholat, RFT, became a registered member in 2006 and has been 

working in the industry for the past 20 years. He is the general manager for 

TDB Consultants Inc. and spends his time keeping Doug and Geoff in line. 

17

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�

As the ABCFP welcomed a vast number 

of new RPFs and RFTs into the ranks, Amanda 

Brittain, BC Forest Professional editor, met with 

two inductees and asked them to provide BCFP 

readers with their perspective on the conference. 

Flint Knibbs, RFT, (pictured on the right) and 

Bernie Mattie, RFT, were the two lucky inductees 

Amanda met in the trade show area during one 

of the ExpoFor session breaks. Flint and Bernie 

both work for the Ministry of Forest and Range 

(MOFR) in Smithers. Here is their perspective on 

the conference as new inductees into the ABCFP: 

After an hour and three-quarter flight 

and a two-hour drive into Harrison Hot 

Springs, the backdrop of Harrison Lake and 

the beautiful mountain surroundings were the 

perfect setting for the conference. What was 

our first impression of the conference? If the 

conference goes as smoothly as our experience 

at the registration desk, with the detail-oriented, 

efficient and courteous ABCFP staff, we 

knew we had a lot to look forward to over the 

next few days. And we weren’t disappointed. 

It was clear that the 59th host committee 

put a lot of thought and hard work into picking 

the session topics and keynote speakers. The 

theme, ‘Back to the Future Forest’ was timely 

and woven expertly throughout each of the 

sessions and speeches. We were also very 

impressed with the attendance at each of the 

sessions. 

One of the advantages of participating 

in this type of conference is the ability to 

meet and network with colleagues who have 

a wide range of experience and expertise. 

Like us, many inductees are just beginning 

their careers in forestry and the conference 

provided a great opportunity for us to begin 

to network and socialize with our peers and 

meet informally with other professionals 

working in academia, industry, government 

and in the private and public sectors. The 

ability to network with other members of the 

ABCFP, who we otherwise might not have had 

the opportunity to meet, was invaluable. 

We felt it was great, as recent RFT 

inductees from Northern BC, to be able to 

speak with Sharon Glover, ABCFP executive 

director, to discuss some areas of concern. It 

was also great to be able to meet many of the 

representatives from different companies 

and organizations to discuss our common 

concerns and ideas. 

I (Flint) was very impressed by the 

organization of the conference and with how 

smoothly it ran. Organizing such an event is 


ExpoFor 

2007 

ExpoFor 2007: A New RFT Inductee Perspective 

no small feat. I also felt that the speakers did a 

wonderful job of provoking thought and turning 

our minds toward the challenges ahead. 

For me (Bernie), the aspect of ExpoFor 

2007 that stood out most was the prevailing 

themes in reference to tenure reform, source 

funding, research, economics, First Nations, 

climate change and what each of these themes 

may hold for the future of our forests and 

communities. 

Overall, we felt the ExpoFor experience 

was very worthwhile and highly recommend 

that the other members of the ABCFP, including 

the remaining inductees who did not 

have a chance to attend ExpoFor 2007, attend 

ExpoFor 2008 in Penticton 

In closing, thank you to Amanda for the 

opportunity to share our perspective. We 

would also like to say a very special thanks 

to the host committee and to the people and 

businesses of Harrison Hot Springs for their 

hospitality. � 

19

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

ExpoFor 

2007 

Jim Rodney Memorial 

Volunteer of the Year 

...for dedicated volunteer service to the as- 

sociation and commitment to its principles. 

Jeff Leahy, RPF 

of Kamloops, BC 

Jeff has been an enthusiastic ABCFP volunteer 

for the last two years. He has touched the lives 

of dozens of new members with his dedication 

to helping them pass the registration exams. 

Jeff set up study groups, located instructors 

and developed and marked mock exams. He 

helped his students teach themselves through 

facilitated discussion groups and even booked 

a guest speaker to talk to the group about exam 

writing tips. “Jeff went above and beyond his 

duties as an exam study group leader,” said 

Bob. “He dedicated many hours of his personal 

time and never hesitated to help individuals 

who were experiencing difficulty with a certain 

topic or those who were feeling stressed 

by the exam preparation and writing process.” 

BC Forest Professional Awards 

...to honour individuals who write outstand- 

ing letters and articles for the magazine. 

Each issue, a top letter and article is selected 

and in January the editorial board selects 

the best of the best. The winners are presented 

with a commemorative plaque. 

Best Letter: Rodney Krimmer, rft 

Entitled: What’s Your Choice? 

Published in: November/December 2006 

Best Article: Dave Gilbert, rpf 

Entitled: Canada’s Greenhouse 

Gas Inventory, Kyoto Forest 

Accounting Rules and Implications 

for BC Forest Professionals. 

Published in: September/October 2006 

Meloche Monnex Continuing 

Education Award 

...recognizes members for their personal com- 

mitment to ongoing professional development. 

Members who personally bear most of 

the cost of their professional development 

can apply for this award. Meloche 

Monnex generously donates two $250 

awards. This year the awards went to: 

John Ingram, rpf, and 

Craig Farnden, rpf 

each received a $250 continuing education 

awards sponsored by Meloche Monnex Inc. 


Disposition of ExpoFor 

2007 Resolutions 

After ExpoFor, the ABCFP council met to 

examine the resolutions made by members. 

Below is a summary of each of the resolutions 

that passed and council’s actions. 

Resolution #1 – Members should be 

asked for feedback on the self assessment 

and peer review processes to determine 

whether the current proposed structure of 

the practice review is in need of improvement 

or delay in implementation. 

Moved: T. Jobb, RFT 

Seconded: D. Martin, RPF 

• Council has directed staff to request 

feedback from the membership on the self 

assessment and peer review continuing 

competency elements. 

• Action taken to date: Staff have put requests 

for feedback on the self assessment and 

peer review elements of the continuing 

competency program in the April and May 

issues of the Increment and on the ABCFP 

website. These and previous comments 

will be used to build the structure of the 

practice review element. Feedback is always 

welcome – e-mail your comments to Brian 

Robinson (brobinson@abcfp.ca), manager 

of professional development and member 

relations. 

Resolution #2 – The ABCFP should continue 

its leadership role and designate the necessary 

resources to ensuring professionals 

have access to all continuing education 

they need to maintain their competency. 

Moved: A. Gorley, RPF 

Seconded: C. Hollstedt, RPF 

• Council has directed staff to continue 

the ABCFP’s leadership and involvement 

with the Forest Resource Continuing 

Education Steering Committee to develop 

a coordinated continuing education 

system for forest resource professionals. 

In addition, Council will, if required at a 

later date, consider assigning additional 

resources and will determine how to 

acquire those additional resources, in 

order to be a leader in implementing this 

initiative.

ExpoFor 

2007 

• Planned action: The ABCFP will continue to play a major role in 

the implementation of this initiative. 

Resolution #3 – The ABCFP should renew its efforts to promote 

the establishment of a strategic forest policy institute in BC. 

Moved: W. Dumont, RPF 

Seconded: W. Bourgeois, RPF 

• Council has directed staff to follow through on last year’s 

suggestion of a letter to the provincial and federal forestry 

ministers. It is also recommended that staff be directed to 

explore more about the BC Forum on Economics and Policy and 

determine if this could be a possible solution. 

• Action taken to date: Letters have been sent to the provincial and 

federal forestry ministers. 

Resolution #4 – Council should consider an amendment 

to the Code of Ethics to explicitly include ‘the forest’ 

as the first responsibility of a forest professional. 

Moved: R. Krimmer, RFT 

Seconded: J. Perry, RPF 

• Council directed staff to have the professional practice 

committee (PPC) look at this resolution and provide council 

with a recommendation. An amendment to the Code of Ethics 

will require a member vote. 

• Action taken to date: The PPC has met and will present their 

recommendation to council at their May meeting (May 24-25, 2007) 

Resolution #5 – As this resolution was defeated, Council did not 

examine it. 

Resolution #6 – Council should consider creating a reserve fund 

through banking any profits from ExpoFor conferences to be used to 

minimize registration costs. 

Moved: R. Post, RPF 

Seconded: R. Dominy, RPF 

• Council directed staff to develop a new ExpoFor financial policy 

that corresponds to the new model for organizing the annual 

ExpoFor conference. The policy should set direction for ExpoFor 

finances, address how to calculate delegate registration fees, and 

give direction on how to deal with ExpoFor losses and surpluses. 

• Planned action: Staff will revise the ExpoFor financial policy to 

address these details for approval at the May council meeting. 

Resolution #7 – ExpoFor 2007 Host Committee should be thanked for 

their work in putting on an enjoyable and educational conference. 

Moved: R. Ewing, RFT 

Seconded: S. Sambo, RPF 

• The president will write a letter to Rob Wood, RPF, host 

committee chair, thanking him and the host committee for an 

excellent job in organizing and implementing ExpoFor 2007. 

• Action completed to date: President Bob Craven wrote to Rob, to 

thank him and his committee. 

Professional Services 


Proud to deliver the Provincial Forest Extension Program 

in partnership with the FIA Forest Science Program 

Putting the best available science, 

indigenous, and experiential 

knowledge within your reach. 

www.forrex.org 

member benefit 

for members of 

the Association of B.C. 

Forest Professionals 

since 1985 

PROGRAM CLUSTERS 

Forest Resources Dynamics 

Ecosystem Management & 

Conservation Biology 

Watershed Management 

Socio-economics and 

Aboriginal Forestry 

INFORMATION PRODUCTS & SERVICES 

NRIN - Natural Resources 

Information Network 

BC Journal of Ecosystems 

and Management (JEM) 

LINK Newsletter 

Streamline Watershed 

Management Bulletin 

FORREX Series 

23

Journal Watch 

This summary is provided by Liz Osborn, MRM, MSc, 

RPBio, publisher of Current Results. 

www.currentresults.com 

Screech Owls Disappear From Lower Mainland 

Greater Vancouver, BC – Western screech owls, 

once commonly observed in forests throughout 

the Lower Mainland, had disappeared from 22 

sites by 2002. Pacific Spirit Park used to be the best 

spot in Vancouver for seeing or hearing screech 

owls. The last time the little, tuft-eared birds were 

detected there was in 1999. Other parks in Surrey, 

Burnaby, Langley, North Delta, Vancouver and 

Tsawwassen have also lost their screech owls. 

Coinciding with the vanishing screech owls is 

an influx of barred owls. They were first noticed in 

1966 at Surrey, and breeding barred owls were first 


documented 20 years later in Langley. Screech owls 

persisted longest in smaller forest patches of less than 

30 hectares, areas smaller than a barred owl’s home 

range. The evidence points to predation by barred owls 

as being responsible for the decline in screech owls. 

Fragmented forests are where screech owls are most 

vulnerable to being eliminated by the larger barred 

owls. Once gone, lengthy distances between forest 

patches prevent more screech owls from moving in. 

Birders expect the small owls to persist in southwestern 

BC in habitat suitable for screech owls but not barred 

owls, such as plantations of young coniferous trees. 

Reference: 

Kyle Elliott. 2006. Declining Numbers of Western Screech-owl in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. British Columbia Birds. 14: 2-11. 

http://www.bcfo.ca/publications/bcbirds-articles/vol_14/Elliott_2006.pdf 

T

Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse 

The inclusion of a ‘mistake of fact’ defense in s-s.72(b) of the 

Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) went comparatively unnoticed 

relative to the defense of due diligence. Mistake of fact 

protects a person who otherwise contravened the Acts if the “person 

reasonably believed in the existence of facts that if true would 

establish that the person did not contravene” the Acts. 

The specific inclusion of a mistake of fact defense in FRPA 

is curious given that it is already part of due diligence. In its 

famous decision of R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, the Supreme Court of 

Canada clearly enunciated two branches of due diligence: 

The defense will be available if the accused reasonably 

believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render 

the act of omission innocent, or if he took all reasonable 

steps to avoid the particular event. [underline added] 

In BC, our Court of Appeal has subsquently echoed these comments. 

Accordingly, the specific inclusion of a mistake of fact defense in 

FRPA appears, at best, redundant. At worse, it creates confusion: if 

the law on due diligence already excuses contraventions that result 

from mistakes of fact, what more did the Legislature intend to add 

with a specific reference a mistake of fact defense? The Legislature 

is presumed not to intend redundancies. Yet, if the specific reference 

to mistake of fact is said not to add anything to the existing law 

on due diligence, then its inclusion appears wholly redundant. 

Assuming the express inclusion of a mistake of fact defense 

was merely “for sake of certainty,” what does it mean? Specifically, 

does it provide an incentive for operators to remain ignorant 

– should it become known as the ‘Sergeant Schulz defense?’ 

Not at all – in fact, it protects those operators who exercise ‘diligence’ 

to ascertain the facts associated with their operations. This is why it is 

part of the due diligence defense in the first place. The key is the reasonableness 

of the mistaken belief. An operator cannot simply claim that it 

did not have knowledge of the facts that led to a contravention if a reasonable 

person in the same position would have known of those facts. 

For example, if an operator declines to obtain a professional assessment 

with respect to an operation that would typically require one, and 

a contravention results, that operator is unlikely to succeed with a mistake 

of fact defense on the basis that it did not have the necessary factual 

knowledge from a professional assessment. That operator would not 

have demonstrated sufficient diligence to take advantage of the defense. 

The Legal 

Perspective 

By Jeff Waatainen, LLB, MA, BA (Hons) 

(...But What About Ignorance of the Facts?) 

The Forest Appeals Commission briefly considered the mistake of 

fact defense in the case of O’Brien v. Government of British Columbia 

(Appeal No. 2005-FOR-14(a)). The case involved riparian management 

zones (RMZ) under a silviculture prescription that called for 

100% basal area retention. These reserves were identified on both 

the silviculture plan maps and the Exhibit ‘A’ map attached to the 

TSL document. Moreover, the reserves were specifically discussed 

between the licensee and the Ministry of Forests and Range at a 

pre-work meeting. Nevertheless, the reserves were clearcut. 

The appellant claimed that the RMZ boundaries were not adequately 

ribboned and, therefore, that he did not know the location of 

the reserves once in the field. The Commission concluded that a reasonable 

operator, under the circumstances, would not have believed that 

there were no RMZs to protect in the block. The Commission found that 

the appellant was “an experienced licensee and should reasonably have 

known” that there were RMZs that required protection. Accordingly, the 

mistake of fact defense did not allow the appellant to simply stick his 

head in the sand and claim that he did not know there were RMZs in the 

field. A reasonable operator under the same circumstances would have 

exercised further diligence to obtain further facts about the RMZs. � 

Jeff Waatainen is an adjunct professor of law at UBC, has practised law in 

the forest sector for over a decade and currently works as a sole practitioner 

out of his own firm of Westhaven Forestry Law in Nanaimo. 

MAY - JUNE 2007 | BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL 25

Interest 

By John Pineau, Executive 

Director, CIF/IFC 

I won’t apologize that the answers to this question read 

like some kind of excessively enthusiastic infomercial - because I 

believe that they are best suited to be delivered in that way. There 

are actually a lot of very good reasons. You should want to belong 

to the CIF to be part of a powerful and effective national network 

of forestry professionals and practitioners that is in the process 

of adding value and changing in many very positive ways. 

The Institute is undergoing a major rejuvenation exercise that will 

bring much improvement, and is already providing immediate new 

value to members across Canada! The CIF already brings together 

many members of the different provincial professional associations in 

a diverse and objective membership that strongly promotes continuing 

education and personal, professional development for its members, and 

advocates for responsible forest stewardship. Here are some examples of 

new and long-standing value and privileges that membership brings: 

• The revamped CIF e-newsletter is entertaining, informative and 

nationally, regionally and locally relevant. It will be emailed to 

members only, six times per year. 

• The Institute developed a new dynamic and exciting website 

focused on useful information, resources and tools for its 

members. The site debuted on March 30, 2007. 

• A national on-line discussion forum has been created to allow 

effective networking and engagement of members on forestryrelated 

issues and topics from coast to coast! Visit the CIF website 

and click on the CIF/IFC Forum link to see what your colleagues 

are saying. 

• All CIF members now receive free of charge - Canadian Silviculture 

magazine; a practical and informative publication focusing on 

forest regeneration. 

• The CIF has launched a monthly electronic lecture series that will 

be practitioner-relevant and timely, with presentations from forest 

Why Belong 

to the Canadian 

Institute of Forestry? 


scientists, researchers and practitioners across Canada – again 

free and easily accessible to all members! You can obtain your 

continuing education credits in your office. Visit the CIF website to 

find out the time and title of our next lecture. 

• The Institute is investing in new partnerships with industry, 

government and other organizations to advance the dissemination 

of forest information, science, research, resources and tools to its 

membership. 

• Significant discounts on all CIF Section and national events 

including technical workshops, field tours, conferences and socials. 

• And last but not least – six issues per year of The Forestry Chronicle, 

our respected and informative journal. With a planned shift to 

provide additional practical and applied science information for 

use in forest management planning and operations, it is now even 

more relevant. The Chronicle is going digital in addition to its 

paper format and archive issues back to the first one in 1925, will be 

available for all members before the end of 2007. 

The Institute will celebrate its centenary in 2008. We are a venerable 

organization with a rich, but admittedly sometimes passive, history. 

However, the CIF is beginning to provide significantly more to its members; 

and this effort will continue – aggressively. The powerful continuing 

education and personal/professional development components of 

CIF membership are growing rapidly and will be a considerable and 

valuable package that individuals, organizations, companies and governments 

come to recognize and actively seek. Ultimately, the opportunity 

to effectively network and communicate with fellow forestry professionals 

and technical practitioners locally and across Canada; and 

the opportunity to openly and objectively advocate responsible forest 

stewardship will be the major focus of the Institute in the years to come. 

To join the CIF, visit their website: 

http://www.cif-ifc.org/english/e-member-apply.shtml

Many British Columbians are aware of 

H.R. MacMillan’s numerous achievements that 

earned him the title of BC’s Most Influential 

Forestry Leader in a contest held by the ABCFP 

last year. MacMillan is best known for being 

BC’s first chief forester and establishing BC’s 

most powerful and successful forestry company, 

MacMillan Bloedel. MacMillan is also 

well known for his philanthropic contributions 

that established places like the MacMillan 

Planetarium and MacMillan Park, the home 

of Cathedral Grove on Vancouver Island. 

What the headlines of MacMillan’s many 

achievements don’t tell us is about the man 

behind the headlines —MacMillan the passionate 

conservationist, shrewd business 

man and compassionate family man. The 

biography of MacMillan, “H.R.” written by 

Ken Drushka, provides a fascinating look 

at MacMillan’s life that spanned 90 years 

and was witness to western expansion, two 

world wars and the evolution of forest policy 

in BC. This biography provides a glimpse 

into the man who would eventually achieve 

all the success he is well known for today. 

MacMillan discovered his love for the 

outdoors and passion for forestry between 

1902 and 1906 when he attended Ontario 

Agricultural College at Guelph. The foundation 

for MacMillan’s belief in the philosophies of 

conservation and sustainable forestry were 

cemented in the formal forestry training he 

received while earning his master’s degree 

at the Yale School of Forestry where he was 

influenced by the pioneers of the US conservation 

movement who included Bernhard Fernow 

and Gifford Pinchot. MacMillan began putting 

BC’s Most Influential 

Forestry Leaders 

Harvey Reginald MacMillan (1885 – 1976) 

the philosophies he learned into action as 

early as 1917 when he instituted a system of 

selective logging for spruce that was being 

harvested on the Queen Charlotte Islands 

to supply lumber for British war planes. 

He continued to advocate for sustainable 

forestry throughout his career. During the 

Sloan Commissions of the mid-twentieth 

century, MacMillan encouraged government 

to adopt policies that would require 

forest companies to replant the lands they 

harvested. MacMillan recognized early on 

that this reinvestment would be the only 

way to ensure a healthy supply of timber 

resources for the province in the future. 

MacMillan was a visionary who saw opportunities 

not limitations. In 1912 he was 

appointed BC’s first chief forester when he 

established the BC Forest Service. As BC’s 

chief forester, MacMillan traveled the world 

to study potential international markets for 

BC timber. This trip would take him more 

than a year to complete because the primary 

mode of transportation at the time was 

steamship. MacMillan’s efforts paid off. The 

knowledge and connections he made during 

his world travels helped him to establish a 

home-grown export business for BC timber. 

In 1919, with a $10,000 investment, using 

money he borrowed on his house, MacMillan 

started BC’s first locally owned timber export 

company—H.R. MacMillan Export Company. 

He started this company with a business partner 

in England, Montague Meyer, who sourced 

international customers for BC’s timber. It 

is incredible to imagine that MacMillan was 

able to establish a successful export business 


Interest 

By Denise Leech, Communications 

Coordinator and Webmaster, ABCFP 

in the early 20th century at a time when the 

primary means of communication was by 

letter mail. Sometimes it would take more 

than a month for the business partners on two 

different continents to exchange information. 

MacMillan’s export company would 

eventually grow over the next half century 

into the MacMillan Bloedel forest empire. 

The underlying characteristics of 

MacMillan’s personality were his strong 

work ethic and forceful personality. Up 

until his 80s, MacMillan was still working 

12 hour days, six days a week. He was a man 

who was used to getting what he wanted 

and had very little patience for anyone who 

stood in his way. His forceful personality was 

complemented by a large physical presence 

which probably helped him win a few tough 

negotiations. He had, “broad shoulders, 

piercing blue eyes, stood more than six feet 

tall and weighed more than 200 pounds.” 

In addition to his tough exterior, MacMillan 

possessed a softer more compassionate side. 

He was married to his wife Edna for 51 years 

until her death. They had two daughters 

Jean and Marion. Despite the demands of his 

busy life, he was very close to his family and 

often made time to spend with them. When 

his daughter Jean graduated from Stanford, 

MacMillan gave her a trip around the world 

for two. Jean chose to take her father on the 

trip and they spent the next four months 

traveling around the world together. 

MacMillan came a long way from the farm 

in the Quaker community of York County, 

Ontario to his house in Vancouver’s affluent 

neighborhood of Shaughnessy, but he 

never forgot about the values he was taught 

early in life. He took his social responsibility 

very seriously and it is estimated that 

he donated $30 million of his estate to 

different charities and causes around BC, 

leaving a legacy for everyone to enjoy. 

What makes the story of MacMillan so captivating 

is not the headlines of his achievements 

but the incredible journey he took making him 

one of BC’s most influential forestry, political 

and business leaders of the 20th century. � 

The information for this article was obtained 

from the biography of H.R. MacMillan, written 

by Ken Drushka (1995) and an interview conducted 

with Lorna Campbell, one of Macmillan’s 

secretaries in the late 1960s. 

27

Book Review 

Wildlife & Trees in BC 

Eds. Fenger, M., T.Manning, J. Cooper, S. Guy, & P. Bradford 

pp 336. illustr 

Lone Pine Publishing, 2006. 

T“This new field guide provides the most recent understanding of 

how forested ecosystems work and how to manage forests for wildlife 

species that depend on specific types of trees. A collaboration between 

biologists and foresters, this guide integrates conservation principles 

with tree management practices.” Such is the claim on the book’s back 

cover, and, unlike so many publishers’ blurbs, it is no exaggeration. 

The guide, profusely illustrated with excellent photographs and clear 

diagrams, is organized in five parts. Part one discusses wildlife trees and 

their dependent species; the descriptions of wildlife trees and the processes 

of decay will be familiar to most forest professionals but the linkages to 

birds, mammals and bio-diversity will be illuminating. Part two, on wildlife 

trees and ecosystem management, will be more of an aide memoire 

than anything else while the short part 

three, on wildlife trees in urban and Ranking: 5 out of 5 cones 

rural environments, will have particular 

relevance for urban forest professionals. 

This would have been the place 

to point out that topping to facilitate 

nest-building may be acceptable in rural 

settings but it is unwise in built-up 

areas. Part four, titled Knowing the 

Trees, should be just a refresher course 

for forest professionals with a dendrology course under their belts. Part five 

begins by reconciling BC’s terrestrial ecoprovinces with the more familiar 

biogeoclimatic regions and one wonders why there have to be two separate 

and different systems to describe the same landscape. This is followed by 

detailed descriptions of 19 primary cavity excavators; 20 birds, 11 bats and 

seven mammals which are secondary cavity users; and nine open nesting 

birds. All have photos and range maps. 

There are a couple of appendices, a glossary and an extensive bibliography. 

Production is well up to Lone Pine’s high standard. 

Now that the many facets of forestry and forest land management are of 

universal concern and interest, every forest professional should study this 

guidebook and it will be of much more use in the pocket of a cruiser’s vest 

than gathering dust on an office shelf. � 

Reviewed by Roy Strang, PhD, RPF(Ret) 


Member 

News 

Erratum 

Darren DeRosier, RFT, should have been included in the list of 

new RFTs in the September/October 2006 issue of BC Forest 

Professional. 

On the Move 

Diane R. Medves, RPF, was appointed the director of the Forest 

Practices Branch for the Ministry of Forests and Range in 

March 2007. 

Awarded 

To recognize members who keep informed in their field of 

practice and are aware of current issues and developments in 

forestry (as per Bylaw 11.4.6), the association awards certificates 

of professional development. The following members 

completed at least 150 contact hours of continuing education 

and professional development activity during a five-year 

period and qualified for a certificate: Rodney John Derouin, 

RPF; Craig E. Mistal, RPF; George O. Zorn, RPF. 

Applicants who personally bore the majority of the costs to 

obtain a certificate are eligible to win one of two annual $250 

Meloche Monnex Continuing Education Awards. Find more 

information online (www.abcfp.ca). 

New RPFs 

Shannon Burbee, RPF; Mona Desgroseilliers, RPF; Lee Evans, 

RPF; Peter Forbes, RPF; Tera Devlyn Grady, RPF; Jonathan 

Rowe, RPF. 

New RFTs 

Helen Theodora Eggen, RFT; Jill Ann Macaulay, RFT; Shauna 

Rae Norman, RFT; George Ryan, RFT; Shane Eugene Sexsmith, 

RFT; Shane Rene Simard, RFT. 

New Special Permits 

Jamie Beaulne, Transferring Professional Forester; Sean 

Mastervick, Transferring Professional Forester.

New Enrolled Members 

Ian Bradley Becker, FIT; Wolfgang Erwin Beck, FIT; Darren 

MacDonald Cowan, FIT; Lindsay Cunningham, FIT; Justin 

Brian Dexter, TFT; Joe Dolling, FIT; Ian Wade Grindle, FIT; 

Stephanie Nadine Haight, FIT; Saerd Jonsson, FIT; Ian Michael 

Johnson, FIT; Bhupendra Khadka, FIT; Eric Michael Kishkan, 

FIT; Seyed Hossein Abedinzadeh Kivi, FIT; Kiera Frances 

McLellan, TFT; Sarah Jean Mukai, FIT; Craig Robert Nitschke, 

FIT; Maria Carolina Silva Olguin, FIT; Matthew Pilszek, TFT; 

Michael Joseph Pitre, FIT; Tammy Sue Marie Rancourt, FIT; Kyle 

Douglas Runzer, FIT; Sally Marlene Ann Sellars, FIT; Kristofer 

David Sigalet, FIT; Nancy Stairs, FIT; Karl Robert Steinicke, 

TFT; Colin Gerald Vandergaag, FIT; Ira Wyton, TFT; Patrick 

Wylie, FIT. 

Reinstatements 

James Fulton Blake, RPF; Michael David Francis, RPF; Leo 

Paul Fauchon, RFT; Stacy Galbraith, FIT; Adam Giesbrecht, 

RFT; Gerald McVeigh, RPF(Ret); Wayne Murdock, RFT; Harriet 

Elizabeth Pollock, RFT; James L. Smith, RFT; Barry Soderstrom, 

RFT; Miguel Viveiros, FIT. 

The following people are no longer entitled to 

practise professional forestry in British Columbia 

Removals 

Harry Julius Anderson; Darrell Francis Ball; Daniel A.J Bélisle; 

John Magnus Cromarty; Maurice Wayne Davidson; Michael 

Joseph Doiron; William Thomas Donnelly; Christopher Kim 

Egolf; Dale Feltrin; Ronald David Fuhr; Stacy Lynn Galbraith; 

John Harry Hallstrom; Robert Stephen Harrison; Kyle Garth 

Henry; Thomas Martin Kafer; Christopher Ward Larsen; Chad 

Johannes Louwe; Bruce Alen McMahon; Wayne A. Murdock; 

Peter Robert Nickerson; Peggy Lea Norman; Harriet Elizabeth 

Pollock; Maurice Albert Potesta; Ole R Quam; Derek Jason 

Smith; Barry Gerald Soderstrom; Michel Loree Woodman. 

Resignations 

Alan Wayne Bradley; Paul Brett; Kenneth Allan Collingwood; 

Albert Coombs; Alison Mary Drennan; Robert Roland Ellis; 

Ian Emery; Charles Bruce Hopper; Pierre Le Bouder; Dana 

McPherson; Jules Edward Newbery; Yukio Ozawa; Robert 

Charles Robertson; Kendall Wesley Scott; Chad Seigel; Victor 

Brock Simons; Thomas A. Szauer; Ross Tozer; Marguerite 

Grace Veenstra; Deanna Lynn Dent-Wilson. 

Special Permit Cancellation 

Kim Arthur Mann has retired from his position and his special 

permit is no longer required. 

Leaves of Absence 

Robert Samuel Anderson; Michel David Arsenault; Richard 

Mark Beecroft; Vicky Bosse; Peter Buck; Deirdre Bruce; Robert 

D. Copithorne; Bruce Colpitts; Nathan Paul Davis; Heather 

Mary Davis; John R. Doucette; Jennifer May Eckford; Monika 

Fern Eriksen; Robert Frederick Friberg; Stacey D.L Grozelle; 

Richard Henry Heath; Wendy Elizabeth Hutchison; John Kogel; 

Genevieve Lachance; Ivan Listar; Tracy Leone MacDonald; 


Member 

News 

Eric Todd Manning; Linda Anne Martin; Yurgen Menninga; John 

Alfred Neumann; Doran Wayne Osterhold; Aaron E. Pederson; 

Peter Ross; Mark H. Schoenberger; Jeremy J. Shelford; Therese 

Martina Steiner; Michael H. Steeves; Nicholson; Gordon Thorp; 

Claire Trethewey; Allan Willcocks. 

29

Member 

News 

In Memoriam 

It is very important to many members to receive 

word of the passing of a colleague. Members have 

the opportunity to publish their memories by sending 

photos and obituaries to BC Forest Professional. 

Robin L. Caesar 

RPF (Ret) # 196, Life Member 

1924-2006 

Robin Caesar of North Vancouver, BC, 

passed away on December 12, 2006. He 

was born on August 25, 1924 and became 

registered with the ABCFP in 1953. 

New Retired Members 

Richard Cain, RPF; David A.H Campbell, RPF; Michael A. 

Carlson, RPF; Stanley Chester, RPF; Allan Eric Collins, 

RPF; Frederick Diedrichsen, RPF; Donald Ernest Embury, 

RPF; John D. Fuller, RPF; David Stuart Jamieson, RPF; 

John Russell Jones, RPF; Paul Frederick MacNamara, RPF; 

Reinhard Muller, RPF; James Trenton Nash, RPF; Ronald Kurt 

Sawatzky, RPF; Donald E. Shaw, RPF; Gary Sutherland, RPF. 

Malcolm Harold Truesdale 

RFT #0130 

1963– 2007 

It is with great sadness that we acknowledge 

the passing of Malcolm Harold Truesdale, 

a friend and co-worker. Malcolm was born in 

Kitimat, BC. He loved the 

outdoors and spent many 

happy hours fishing and 

hunting with his father. 

A love for the outdoors 

naturally led Malcolm to 

a career in forestry. After 

graduating from high 

school, Malcolm attended BCIT and became 

a forest technician. In September of 1986, 

Malcolm was hired by West Fraser Mills in 

Terrace. In April 2006, after twenty years in 

Terrace, Malcolm and his family accepted a 

transfer to West Fraser Mills Quesnel Division. 

Malcolm enjoyed the new challenges of 

working in the interior and looked forward to 

learning more about the surrounding area. 

Malcolm’s good sense of humour and 

infectious laugh brought many a light moment. 

His cheerful personality and easy going nature 

uplifted many of his friends and co-workers. 

Malcolm was a kind and gentle soul, a loving 

husband and father, a great friend and he will 

be truly missed by all who had the privilege of 

knowing him. 

Malcolm passed away suddenly in Quesnel 

on February 20, 2007. Malcolm is survived by his 

wife Melba and daughter Emily. 

Submitted by Malcolm’s friends and colleagues. 


To check whether someone is a memberin-good-standing 

of the ABCFP, visit the 

association’s website (www.abcfp.ca) and 

check the Membership Directory. If you have 

notes on members, please e-mail BC Forest 

Professional (mmentore@abcfp.ca) or fax 

the association office (604-687-3264). 

Kendall Balaski 

1949-2007 

Ken passed away peacefully at his home 

in Victoria on March 6, 2007, at the age of 57. 

Ken graduated with a degree in forestry from 

UBC in 1973 and was a 

registered professional 

forester with the ABCFP 

from 1975 until 1998. 

He spent the majority 

of his career working 

with the Ministry of 

Forests and Range 

in Williams Lake and Victoria. 

Ken had an easygoing, helpful and caring 

nature. He was always willing to share his 

knowledge and experience with his peers. 

Ken’s family was his priority and he leaves 

Leslie, his loving wife; his children, Jason, 

Kirsten, Cole, Tara (Mark) and Shawna 

(Bob); five grandchildren, Brittany, Caleb, 

Ayla, Robson and Bryn; his mother, Ruth; six 

brothers and sisters and their families; and 

many good friends. 

Ken’s family wish to thank Dr. M. Barnett 

and his team for their exceptional care and 

concern during his leukemia treatment. 

Tributes, if desired, may be made to the 

Hematology/BMT program, Gordon and 

Leslie Diamond Centre, 2775 Laurel St 

Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9. 

Condolences may be offered to the 

family at: www.mccallbros.com 

Submitted by James O. Geoghegan, RPF.

As a valued ABCFP member, you now have 

exclusive access to discounts on exciting 

products and services through The Forest Club. 

To start enjoying the benefits of membership, sign 

up today at abcfp.intrd.com. A percentage of most 

of your purchases will go to supporting your 

professional organization. 

THE 

Forest 

Club 

at abcfp.intrd.com 

Brought to you by the 

Association of BC Forest Professionals 


START 

ENJOYING 

THE 

GOOD 

LIFE 

WITH 

THE 

Forest 

Club 

at abcfp.intrd.com 

EXCLUSIVE 

DISCOUNTS ON: 

AUTOMOTIVE 

ENTERTAINMENT 

FINANCIAL SERVICES 

SPORTS & REC 

TRAVEL 

FLOWERS 

PHOTOGRAPHY 

JEWELRY 

APPAREL 

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 

ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP. 

SIGN UP TODAY AT 

abcfp.intrd.com 

Or call 1 800-677-8993 or 604-677-8993 

31 

00397INTRD

T - Association of BC Forest Professionals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?