BCForest - University of Northern British Columbiaunbc.ca/sites/default/files/assets/annie_booth/bcforpro_2008_6.pdf · By Brian Robinson, RPF 15 Biology, Forestry and Ethics: Professionals

ForestPROFESSIONALBC

VIEWPOINT

NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2008

VIEWPOINTEthics

Special FeatureForestry Team in Action

The Tsilhqot'in Decision:All Hair and Tennis Shoes?

ExpoFor 2009Registration Package

Third Party Enforcementof Professional Ethics

Let’s talk about the impactof the Canadian dollarWhether you’re involved in beef, dairy or lumber, the value of the loonie impactsyour business. Victor Aideyan explains what’s in store for 2009.

Tour locations and dates:Williams Lake Nov. 17 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. Pioneer Complex

Quesnel Nov. 17 7 – 9 p.m. Best Western Tower Inn

Prince George Nov. 18 9 – 11 a.m. Ramada Prince George

Vanderhoof Nov. 18 3 – 5 p.m. Vanderhoof Elks Club

Burns Lake Nov. 19 9 – 11 a.m. College of New Caledonia

Smithers Nov. 19 7 – 9 p.m. Hudson Bay Lodge

Comox Nov. 20 7 – 9 p.m. Glacier Greens Golf Course

Nanaimo Nov. 21 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. Grand Hotel Nanaimo

This free event is open to all producers but seating is limited, so register early.For more information or to sign up, visit www.AgriSuccess.ca or call1-800-387-3232 to reach the FCC office near you.

09-062-201-38E10/14/08

NSF

2 BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL | NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2008

3NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2008 | BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL

Viewpoints9 Ethics: Finding the Balance

10 Ethical Conduct: The ABCFP Discipline Committee’s PerspectiveBy Dan Graham, LLB, LLM, RPF,Chair, Discipline Committee

11 Bridge the Gap Between Ought and Can: Discretion and Ethical AccountabilityBy Steve Baumber, RPF

12 Teaching Ethical Conduct and the Lost Wallet DebateBy Bruce Larson, PhD, ACBFP Honourary Member

13 Forest Professionals and Failures in EthicsBy Annie L. Booth, PhD, MES, BA, MCIP

14 The ABCFP's Ethics and Obligations WorkshopBy Brian Robinson, RPF

15 Biology, Forestry and Ethics: Professionals Working Togetherin BC's ForestsBy Warren Warttig, RPBio

16 How the Government Applies Ethics to ForestryBy Doug Konkin, RPF, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Forests and Range

17 The Ethical Aspects of Ecosystem-Based ManagementBy David Flood, RPF

Special Feature20 Forestry Team in Action

Interest18 The Tsilhqot’in Decision: All Hair

and Tennis Shoes?By Jason Fisher, LLB

Association Business6 President’s Report

7 CEO’s Report

8 Association News

24 Member News

Departments4 Letters

23 The Legal PerspectiveBy Jeff Waatainen, llb, ma, ba (hons)

25 Book Review

| Volume 15 Issue 6Index

BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL

November - December 2008

isto

ckph

oto

Cover Photo: Kylie Harrison, RPF

Pho

to: A

man

da B

ritt

ain

18

15

Put in Your Two CentsThe 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

[email protected]

Please refer to our website for guidelines

to help make sure your submission gets

published in BC Forest Professional.


LettersForestPROFESSIONALBC

BC Forest Professional is published six times a yearby the Association of BC Forest Professionals

1030–1188 West Georgia St, Vancouver, BC V6E 4A2 Tel: 604.687.8027 Fax: 604.687.3264

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.abcfp.ca

Managing Editor: Amanda Brittain, abc Editor: Brenda Martin

Editorial Assistant: Michelle Mentore

Editorial Board:Mark Hall, rpf(chair);Colin Buss, rpf;

Megan Hanacek, rpf; Kylie Harrison, rpf; Frank Varga, rpf(council rep); John Cathro, rpf;

Lisa Perrault, rft; Roy Strang, rpf (ret); Alan Vyse, rpf, Amanda Brittain, abc (staff liaison) and

Brenda Martin (staff liaison)

Design: Massyn DesignPrinting: Hemlock Printers

Distribution: PDQ Post Group

Advertising Sales Manager: Brenda Martin1030–1188 West Georgia St, Vancouver, BC V6E 4A2

Tel: 604.639.8103 604.687.3264E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN:1715-9164 Annual Subscriptions: Canada $42.40 incl GST

U.S. and international $80 Canadian fundsPublications mail agreement No: 40020895

Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to:ABCFP Circulation Department

1030–1188 West Georgia St, Vancouver, BC V6E 4A2

PRESIDENT Al Balogh, rpf

VICE-PRESIDENT Jonathan Lok, rft

PAST PRESIDENT Paul Knowles, rpf

LAY COUNCILLORSGordon Prest; Pam Wright, PhD

COUNCILLORSRick Brouwer, rpf; Jacques Corstanje, rpf; Ian Emery, rft;

John Hatalcik, rpf; Kathryn Howard, rpf;Frank Varga, rpf; Diana Wood, rpf

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Sharon Glover, mba

REGISTRAR Randy Trerise, rpf

DIRECTOR, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND FOREST STEWARDSHIP Mike Larock, rpf

DIRECTOR, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION Lance Nose

DIRECTOR, COMMUNICATIONS Amanda Brittain, abc

MANAGER, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND MEMBER RELATIONS

Brian Robinson, rpf

BC Forest Professional is the professional magazine of the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP).Editorial submissions, comments, letters to the editor,

articles and photos should be sent to the editor, address above. The opinions expressed in BC Forest

Professional do not necessarily represent those of the ABCFP, its council or other members. Reprinting

and copying of BC Forest Professional articles is encouraged. Please include a credit to both the author

and BC Forest Professional.

Letters

In reference to the September/October is-

sue of the BC Forest Professional, I would

sincerely agree that a career in the forestry

can be rewarding and fulfi lling. However,

there are two sides to every story and I feel it

is necessary to point out the other side.

I entered the forestry profession desir-

ing to make a difference and practice good

forest stewardship on a cycle of continuous

improvement. However, given the current

environment where success seems to be

measured by having the lowest silviculture

accrual rate, beating the appraisal allowance,

or meeting minimum stocking standards at

free growing, I found that being an innovative

good steward is very diffi cult. In order to meet

the mediocre objectives, cutting costs and

getting the lowest bid has become the order

of the day. Those professionals who want to

do great things for regenerating the forests of

BC fi nd themselves hamstrung by budgets,

government policy that offers few incentives,

and even computer models that tell them

investing the next rotation isn’t worth it. In

addition, we fi nd ourselves managing forests

from the offi ce with checklists, scientifi c re-

ports, and computer models, relying on inex-

perienced people to bring back information

from the fi eld as if this was enough. Instead

of getting out to the fi eld ourselves, we end

up becoming chained to a desk and experts

at jumping through bureaucratic process

rather than implementing good practices on

the ground. Innovation is rewarded with the

words “We don’t need that to get to free grow-

ing.” Given the above, professional foresters

who fi nd themselves trapped in this situation

must seriously question whether they truly

have the right to practise.

Although we are told repeatedly that we

are needed, the ultimate value of a resource

is determined by what someone is willing to

pay for it. Enough said. While recruitment

is important, the forestry sector needs to be

more concerned about keeping the existing

contingent of forest professionals it has, or

who is going to steward the next generation

of forests or train the next generation of forest

professionals?

Darius Bucher, RPF

Kamloops

Visit the ABCFP's Discussion Forum on our

website to read Darius' full letter.

In Extremely Poor TasteI found your article in the September-

October 2008 BC Forest Professional on

“How to Fail the Registration Exam” in

extremely poor taste. While I realize this

article was intended to be humorous, it is

completely inappropriate for the ABCFP

to label its members as “underachievers”

who are looking to “languish for another

year as enrolled or conditional members.”

For an association that charges us

in their Code of Ethics to “abstain from

undignifi ed public communication with

another member” (Bylaw 11.6.1), what kind of

example are you setting for your members?

Carissa Logue, RFT

Queen Charlotte Islands

The ABCFP is Moving in Mid-NovemberOur new address will be:

#330-321 Water St.

Vancouver, BC, V6B 1B8

All email, fax and phone contact

information will stay the same.

The Other Sideof the Recruitment Issue


Letters

In the Letters section of the September/

October issue of the BC Forest Professional,

Robert Mohr rightly advocates discussion

of the practice of pine-removal partial

cutting in interior stands. There is no doubt

that forest professionals need to care-

fully consider where this practice is – and is

not – appropriate. Where appropriate and

well-executed, partial cutting can capture

volume and value that would otherwise be

lost, conserve green trees for future harvest,

and meet a variety of non-timber objectives.

Where inappropriate or done poorly, partial

cutting can lock a stand into a trajectory of

reduced volume and value growth due to

inadequate stocking, poor quality of retained

trees, and accelerated forest health damage

Mohr appears to conclude that pine-

salvage partial cuts are never appropriate,

and I disagree. Moreover, he overlooks

questions that I suggest must be part of the

discussion. Namely, in those cases where

pine-salvage partial cuts are appropriate,

how should the highly variable post-

harvest stand be surveyed, how should its

stocking be assessed, and in what format

should stocking standards be specified?

Working with Ken Day, Ken Zielke, and

others, I found that in pine-salvage partial

cuts, BC’s traditional survey methods,

stocking estimators, and stocking standards

can work poorly. We developed the DFP

stocking estimator, and experimented

with its incorporation into silviculture

surveys and stocking standards, to better

characterize site occupancy under these

challenging, variable retention conditions.

Every tool (and method) works best under

a certain range of conditions and outside

this range its performance declines. Given

the wide range of objectives, site and stand

conditions, and operational constraints, it

is clear to me that foresters need more – not

fewer - tools in the tool box. To adequately

respond to current and emerging forest

management issues, foresters will have

to continue to innovate in the key areas of

silviculture surveys and stocking standards.

Patrick Martin, RPF

Victoria

I would like to congratulate the ABCFP for

publishing both of Robert W. Gray’s articles

in which he stresses the need for more fire

professionals that have a combination of

education and fire experience. Both articles

provided a breath of hope for the future

of fire and fire use in British Columbia.

I have experience with fire use crews

in the USA which could have their place

here in BC. These mobile crews are

composed of seven highly professional

fire fighters who specialize in fire use

including fuel management, prescribed

burning, fire effects, fire behaviour and

wildland fire suppression. Though we may

not have the population to create a mobile

crew, their structure, organization and

qualification requirements could be used

as an example of the standards required

to create a well-rounded professional that

can be relied on for fire use expertise.

British Columbia’s educational

institutions, government and the ABCFP need

to be leaders in promoting fire as a useful

tool for hazard abatement and ecological

benefits. We need to educate the public

that fire was and should still be part of BC

forests and we need to encourage confidence

in fire use. This confidence is created with

well-trained professional fire experts.

Refer to the Blackhills Fire Use Module

website for more information on fire use

and access the US 2007 Interagency Fire

Use Module Operations Guide at http://

www.nps.gov/ngpfire/module.htm.

Colleen Ross, FIT

Burns Lake

As authors of the May/June issue article on

the DFP sampling method and its use in

salvaged stands, we feel we should respond

to Robert Mohr’s letter. Mr. Mohr asks why

someone would propose pine removal for

beetle control without first embedding such

an approach in a silvicultural system, instead

returning afterwards to try to assess what was

left. We would like to answer that question.

When the Alex Fraser Research Forest

(AFRF) was created twenty years ago, our

lodgepole pine inventory was old and at

risk of loss. We established a system to

direct our harvesting efforts while pro-

tecting the remaining growing stock for

other resource values (primarily deer winter

range) and our future timber supply.

Our harvesting targeted infested trees

for salvage cutting first, and stands with

significant pine second. As the current beetle

epidemic expanded to its maximum extent,

we repeatedly re-entered many stands to

remove infested trees. We were compliant

before the Chief Forester directed us all

to protect the mid-term timber supply.

Our salvage cutting resulted in several

large areas that were highly variable in struc-

ture. We worked with Pat Martin, RPF, and

others to design the DFP method, which simply

seeks to make sense of the stocking in complex

stands. Our article describes the application

of this method to “quantify the aftermath”

and design a strategy to ensure these stands

meet their long-term objectives. We are now

carrying out treatments under this strategy.

If, as Mr. Mohr suggests, others use the

DFP method only to justify what is left, we

agree that this is a problem. However, any

tool or practice can be used poorly or inap-

propriately. We believe our use of pine removal

and the DFP method is achieving our forest

management objectives. We invite anyone

interested in more information to contact us.

Ken Day, RPF

Williams Lake

Ken Zielke, RPF

West Vancouver

Mircea Rau, RFT

Williams Lake

Foresters Need More, Not Fewer, Tools In The Tool Box

Authors Answer Back:Pine Removal And DFP Surveys

Hope for the Future of Fire and Fire Use in BC

We are pleased to announce HKMB was recently acquired by HUB International Insurance Brokers, the leading insurance broker for business and successful individuals who demand the best coverage, service and pricing. Still the same great team, but now with a broader range of products and programs to serve you better.

It’s important to work with a professional who can fully serve all of your risk management needs. As with any legal or financial advisor you engage, you must take care to select the right insurance broker who understands your business. Selecting HUB will help to protect your hard-earned success.

If you are unsure whether your coverage is complete or properly priced or if you’re not getting the level of service that you deserve, it’s time to call a HUB expert.

Ask about our “no obligation” risk assessment survey.

Is it time to reevaluate your risk exposure?

At your service in the provinces and territories of Canada and all 50 United States.

HUB International

Contact: Jordan Fellner • [email protected] • www.hubtos.com • 604-293-1481


President’s Report

by Allan Balogh, RPF

II thought about sticking with the ethics

theme of this issue but I know that will

be covered well by all of the contributors.

In my mind, there is no question that

ethics should be at the front of our minds,

not just in our roles as professionals,

but also in all aspects of our lives.

That leads me into my subject, what do

we mean when we use the term ‘profes-

sional?’

To help me define professional, I

referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary,

Tenth Edition. The definitions include “a

paid occupation, especially one involving

training and a formal qualification” or

alternatively, “engaged in an activity as a

paid occupation rather than as an amateur”

or “a person having impressive competence

in a particular activity.”

As I travel around and talk to members,

I continue to sense that many of us tend to

get hung up on the use of ‘professional’ as

being something that is considered to be

very exclusive. I hear RPFs saying that the

decision to bring RFTs into our association

has infringed on what was their scope of

practice. Similarly, I hear RFTs argue that

they are being restricted in their ability to

be a ‘professional’ by the RFT scope of prac-

tice. More recently, this topic has come up

in the context of creating a new measure-

ments category under the umbrella of the

Association of BC Forest Professionals.

My personal view is that people in all

walks of life can be professional in the

way they conduct themselves regardless of

the level of education and type of work in

which they are engaged. Based on the above

definitions, if people have the appropriate

training and conduct themselves with

competence in a particular activity, they

deserve to be recognized as acting in a

professional manner.

I think it is time to be change leaders

and move forward as a team of forest

professionals. That means recognizing

and accepting that all forest professionals

bring specific competencies to the job of

managing the province’s forests. By doing

so we can celebrate the sum total of all the

individual contributions to the package we

deliver as forest professionals. And maybe

this does link back into the ethics topic,

respecting our fellow members is a key part

of our Code of Ethics.

My dictionary includes in the definition

of ‘team’ the phrase “to come together as

a team to achieve a common goal.” The

Foresters Act tells us our common goal is

to ensure principles of forest stewardship

consistent with the public interest. How we

achieve that goal is by working together as a

team of forest professionals. 3

What is a Forest Professional?


II recently returned from a trip to

Clayoquot Sound with a group of

retired chief foresters. It was an eye-

opening experience to say the least.

Not only were the company and

the scenery spectacular (especially for

me – a transplant from Ontario who still

loves every glimpse of the ocean I get),

I learned a great deal about black holes

(now green), protests, and the process BC

went through to determine if harvesting

could occur in Clayoquot Sound. But most

importantly, I learned about perspectives.

Before I joined the retired chief foresters

on their tour of Clayoquot Sound, I knew that

forest professionals worked hard to balance

the social, environmental and economic

values the people of BC assigned to the

forests; however, never has the importance

of this balance of the three perspectives been

as clear to me as it was in Clayoquot Sound.

Our group was fortunate to meet with a

representative of the Friends of Clayoquot

Sound as well as forest professionals,

licence holders and scientists. Of course,

each of these people had different

perspectives on Clayoquot Sound.

After the activities of the early 1990s

in Clayoquot Sound, BC went through an

extensive process to determine how much, if

any, harvesting was acceptable in this unique

ecosystem. Some of our members were part

of the scientific panel that conducted the

studies of forest management in the Sound. I

would be surprised if any other area in North

America has been through such a rigorous

process before harvesting proceeded.

The process may not have been perfect –

few things in life ever are – but it is important

that we learn as we go along and participate

in processes such as this one so forest

professionals can be a part of the solution.

From my perspective, it’s important that our

members remain committed to the results of

planning processes that have balanced First

Nations and public interests with sustainable

resource use. The scientific panel and

associated watershed studies shed light on

how and where harvesting could take place. A

certification scheme ensures that harvesting

in the area is responsible and sustainable.

It’s now the job of the First Nations,

supported by forest professionals, to

make decisions based on their traditional

knowledge and a wealth of scientific

information in Clayoquot Sound.

What’s your perspective? Join the chat in

the Discussion Forum on our website. 3

Gaining Perspective

Pho

to: K

im A

llan,

RFP

CEO'sReportby Sharon Glover, CEO


Association News

Revised Self-Assessment Now AvailableThe ABCFP now has a simplified self-

assessment process. Here are some

highlights of the proposed changes:

1. Applicable members must answer a series

of questions to determine if they practise

professional forestry.

2. If applicable members do not practise

professional forestry at all, they do not

need to complete a self-assessment but

must make a Declaration of Non-Practise.

3. If applicable members do practise

professional forestry, they must complete

a self-assessment form, professional

development plan and make a declaration,

as before.

4. There are now 20 questions to answer

instead of 33.

For more information, visit www.abcfp.ca.

Forest Technologist Transitional Policy Ends Soon The deadline for submitting a membership

application under the Forest Technologist

Transitional Policy is November 30, 2008.

It is important to note that applications

received by our office by November 30th

that are considered incomplete will not be

accepted under the terms of this policy.

If you or someone you know is a

forest technician with no diploma or

a technologist with an unrecognized

diploma and at least five (5) years of work

experience in forest technology, this is

the final chance to take advantage of the

transitional provisions under this policy.

To determine if you are eligible to apply

for membership as a conditional RFT under

the revised Forest Technologist Transitional

Policy, please visit the website: www.abcfp.ca.

Aboriginal Members Have Opportunity to Self-IdentifyBecause of the growing importance of

Aboriginal issues in BC and due to the

increase in the ABCFP’s commitment to

work closely with Aboriginal, we would like

to discover how many of our members are

of Aboriginal ancestry. Members who are of

Aboriginal ancestry have the opportunity to

self-identify as such on this year’s member-

ship renewal form. The self-identification

opportunity is entirely optional.

How Do I Renew My Membership?Active registered members (RPFs and

RFTs), transferring professional foresters

and limited licence holders must complete

three steps to renew their membership:

Step 1: Submit your 2008 Self-Assessment

Declaration or a Declaration of Non-Practise.

Step 2: Notify the ABCFP if there has been

a change in your indictable offence status.

Step 3: Pay your fees.

Enrolled members (FITs and TFTs),

forestry pupils, retired members and

visiting professional foresters only need to

complete two steps to renew their member-

ships because they are not required to

submit a Self-Assessment Declaration.

Step 1: Notify the ABCFP if there has been a

change in your indictable offence status.

Step 2: Pay your fees.

All steps to renew your membership

must be completed by January 31, 2009 or

you will be subject to administrative fees.

If you haven’t completed these steps by

March 31, 2009, you will be removed from

membership and not be entitled to practise

forestry in BC. Visit the Steps to Renew

page of the website for more information.

Inflationary Fee Increase ApprovedAt their last meeting, council approved an

inflationary fee increase that will take ef-

fect December 1, 2008 (for fiscal 2009 fees).

The fee increase was based on the increase

in BC’s Consumer Price Index of 3.3% and

was capped at $10 for RPFs and RFTs as per

Bylaw 9.4. The new fees are as follows:

RPF $345.92 plus $17.30 GST for a

total of $363.22 (increase of $10).

RFT $315.40 plus $15.77 GST for a

total of $331.17 (increase of $10)

FIT $260.24 plus $13.01 GST for a total

of $273.25 (increase of $8.30)

FP $303.64 plus $15.18 GST for total

of $318.82 (increase of $9.70)

TFT $241.89 plus $12.09 GST for a

total of $253.98 (increase of $7.75)

Apply Now for a Forest Technologist Limited LicenseThis temporary process is available to

candidates who have a great deal of

experience in a specific area of forest

technology practice, but don’t meet the full

scope of RFT practice requirements, to join

the association while a permanent process

is being developed. The Conditional Forest

Technologist Limited Licence process

sets out the guidelines that allow these

technologists to join the ABCFP. The process

is described on our website and we have

posted a list of frequently asked questions

on our website to address the process.

The deadline for submitting an applica-

tion for Conditional Forest Technologist

Limited License is November 30, 2008.

It is important to note that applications

received by our office by November 30th

that are considered incomplete will not be

accepted under the terms of this policy.

Call for Nominations for the 62nd Council ElectionsThe association is now accepting council

nominations from the membership

at large. Elections will occur during

December 2008 and January 2009. The

62nd council will take office in February

2009 at ExpoFor in Prince George.

There are three RPF positions and

one vice-president position open for

election. The following members have

been nominated to run for council.

Valerie LeMay, RPF – UBC Forestry

Kerry Rouck, RPF – Gorman Brothers

Steve Lorimer, RPF – Timber West

Matt Wealick, RPF – Ch-ihl-kway-

uhk Forestry Limited Partnership

Andrea Lyall, RPF –

Squamish Forest District

Rick Brouwer, RPF, of Northwest

Timberlands has agreed to stand for

vice-president.

Nomination forms are available on the

Council Election page of the website and

are due at 4:30 pm, November 14, 2008.

2009 NATIONAL CONFERENCE | CONFÉRENCE NATIONALE DE 2009

ENVISIONINGTOMORROW’S FORESTS

LES FORÊTS DE DEMAIN ON Y PENSE AUJOURD’HUI!

Confirmed keynote speakers: Conférenciers d’honneur ayant confirmé leur présence :

THOMAS HOMER-DIXONFuturist in social adaptation to complex changeProspectiviste spécialiste des adaptations sociales à la complexité des changements

C.S. (BUZZ) HOLLINGConceptual father of adaptive management and ecological resilienceFondateur de l’aménagement adaptatif et de la résilience écologique

Please plan now to join us!Save these dates

April 21-23, 2009WWW.SFMNETWORK.CA

Planifiez dès aujourd’hui et joignez-vous à nous!Réservez ces dates

Du 21 au 23 avril 2009WWW.RESEAUGDF.CA

Hilton Lac-Leamy HotelGatineau (Québec)


Viewpoints

Ethics: Finding the BalanceEthics are like a balancing rock: both solid and fragile at once.

While forest professionals have a Code of Ethics which spells

out our ethical obligations, codes are open to interpretation.

There are shades of right and wrong. In this issue of BC Forest

Professional, we grapple with ethics and try to help readers

fi nd a balance in their own professional ethical obligations.

On the ground, Dan Graham, LLB, LLM, RPF, explains how the

ABCFP’s discipline committee works and how its decisions affect our

members. Brian Robinson, RPF, manager of professional development

and member relations, discussions the new workshop he developed

and delivered this year which addresses forestry ethics. Finally Steve

Baumber, RPF, identifi es the difference between discretion and

ethical accountability for your average forest professional working

with various stakeholders.

Through a wider lens, Bruce Larson, PhD, ABCFP Honourary

Member, identifi es how ethics are taught in UBC’s forestry program.

Doug Konkin, Deputy Minister of Ministry of Forests and Range,

explains how the government applies ethics to forestry. Finally Annie

Booth, PhD, brings applied ethics back into focus when she discusses

forestry ethics and First Nations.

Within an environmental standpoint, Warren Warttig, RPBio,

discusses the role of registered professional biologists in today’s

forestry and David Flood, RPF, explains how ecosystem-based

management and ethics are a match made in heaven.

Ethics can be a heavy topic. We hope this issue will lead to some

good professional discussions.

Pho

to: K

ylie

Har

riso

n, R

PF


Viewpointsby Dan Graham, LLB, LLM, RPF

Chair, Discipline Committee

AAs a self-governing professional

organization, two of the key functions of the

association are to set standards of professional

practice and conduct, and to enforce its

standards through an effective discipline

regime. The seven current members of the

discipline committee are the ‘judges’ of

the association’s professional discipline

process. Like cases in the criminal and civil

justice systems, most discipline complaints

end up being either dismissed or resolved

through negotiated alternate complaint

resolution processes before getting to the

discipline committee for a hearing.

For a discipline hearing under Section 27 of

the Foresters Act, the committee will generally

sit as a panel of three. Committee members

may also sit as a panel of one to approve or

reject negotiated settlements. This article

will discuss the role that ethical principles

play in the committee’s discipline decisions.

Section 22(1) of the Foresters Act provides

that complaints can be made against

members with respect to the following:

a) incompetence in the practice of

professional forestry;

b) conduct unbecoming a member; or

c) contraventions of the Act, bylaws or

resolutions.

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines

‘ethics’ as “2.a. moral principles;

rules of conduct.” So the

consideration of a member’s

ethics is primarily relevant

to assessing the member’s

conduct or behaviour, including

conduct outside the workplace—not

necessarily directly related to the

practice of professional forestry.

In coming to a decision in a

discipline case, the panel will:

a) assess and weigh the evidence;

b) where there is conflicting evidence or

conflicting interpretations of the evidence,

make findings of fact;

c) apply the law to the case-specific facts

to decide on liability (that is, decide

whether the subject member has or has not

breached a required standard); and

d) if there has been a breach, decide on the

appropriate sanction or penalty.

The ‘law’ that applies is the Foresters

Act, the bylaws and standards set by the

association, as well as common law created

by the courts in cases involving professional

ethics, and guidance provided by previous

decisions of the association’s discipline process.

Section 1 of the Foresters Act provides a

broad definition of ‘conduct unbecoming

a member’ as being conduct which

tends to harm the reputation of the

association or its members, or which

undermines the scientific or stewardship

principles that are the foundation of

the practice of professional forestry.

Bylaw 12.4.1 contains a general

requirement for members to act

honourably and with integrity.

Bylaw 11 – the Code of Ethics –

identifies a member’s general and

specific responsibilities to the public, the

profession, the client or employer, and

other members, while acknowledging

that the Code of Ethics “does not deny the

existence of other important duties.”

Case digests of previous discipline

cases dating back to 1996 are available

on the association website, and deal

with various issues including:

• submission of inaccurate post-harvesting

reports without completing the necessary

field work;

• authorizing a logging contractor to cut

timber in trespass;

• misrepresentation of travel claims and

claiming days off as work days;

• falsification of invoices and forging

authorizations to pay;

• failure to have proper regard for the safety

of others; and

• misappropriation of a business opportunity.

When it comes to professional ethics, the

law isn’t always crystal clear – ethical questions

often involve several shades of gray between

obviously right behaviour and clearly wrong

behaviour. The discipline committee is often

required to consider conduct which, while not

in breach of one of the more specific provisions

in the Act, by-laws or standards, falls short of

the general requirements to act with honour,

integrity, diligence and conscientiousness.

If ethical issues can be so complicated

that experts have conflicting views on them,

and discipline panels struggle over them, how

is the average member to know when he or

she is approaching an ethical boundary?

First, remember that just because

there is no law expressly prohibiting

a particular course of conduct, that

doesn’t necessarily make it ethical.

Second, remember the Nuremburg

defence doesn’t work – just because you

are ‘following orders’ or because someone

else ‘does it this way’ doesn’t mean you

are absolved from ethical obligations.

Third, don’t ignore unethical behaviour

by others. Remember your obligations

under bylaw 11.4.3 to deal head on with

ethical breaches by other members.

Finally, apply the newspaper test. That is,

when confronted with an ethical challenge,

imagine how you would feel if your actions

were to be reported on the front page of your

local newspaper. Consider whether you

would want your family or your colleagues

to know about it. If the thought causes

some discomfort, it’s a good indication that

you are pushing the ethical envelope.

Taking the time to consult with your

colleagues or the association’s practice advisory

service when you are in an ethical quandary

should ensure that you never have to tell

your story to the discipline committee.3

Dan Graham, LLB, LLM, RPF, practised as a forester, lawyer and land management consultant until joining the compliance and enforcement branch of the BC Forest Service in 1997.

Ethical Conduct: The ABCFP Discipline Committee’s Perspective


Viewpointsby Steve Baumber, RPF

IBridge the Gap Between Ought and Can:

Discretion and Ethical Accountability

If we say that forest professionals ought

to engage in ethical decision-making, is it

fair to assume that they always can? ‘Ought

presupposes can’ is a contentious concept in

philosophy and, simply stated, it means that

if you expect someone to do something then

you are assuming that they are able to do it.

The contentious part arises when we try to

agree on the circumstances under which we

are prepared to forgive someone for failing to

be able to do what we feel he or she should.

For example, as a forest professional

Sarah ought to sufficiently resolve the

ethical issues that she encounters in her

professional practice. She is therefore

obligated to act as an ethical agent on behalf

of society regarding forest resources. If

she is always obligated to act as an ethical

agent, but in some cases she is unable to act

sufficiently, then is she still ethically liable?

Clearly, if Sarah fails as an ethical

agent because she lacks the competency to

recognize and consider important values and

interests, or because she simply ignores the

issues she encounters, then it seems justified

to hold her liable. But what if she experiences

constraints in a particular situation that

prevent her from effectively deliberating

a problem? In this case, the perception of

Sarah’s ability to do what she ought to do

requires an appreciation of whether or not

she possesses a sufficient level of discretion

to sufficiently deliberate the decision.

We often think of discretion as something

that is ‘given’ but it is more useful to think

of discretion as something that results

from the constraints of a specific decision

or activity. Being given the authority to

exercise your judgement is only part of

what shapes your discretion. Discretion

is also the latitude of choice; the specific

range of interests and values that a forest

professional has the authority to promote or

disregard in order to make their decision.

For example, Sarah is notified by the

Ministry of Forests and Range (MFR) that a

stand in her employer’s operating area has

been infested with spruce bark beetle and

needs to be treated immediately. Sarah has

the authority to freely plan a road to access

the stand. However, she encounters several

interests and ethical issues for her to resolve:

• Her employer directs her to minimize the

cost of building the road;

• The policies of a local land use plan

prevent her from passing through mule

deer winter range;

• The road must unavoidably cross through

a designated community watershed; and

• The stand is on territory claimed by a local

Aboriginal group.

In order to plan the access road, Sarah

has the authority intrinsic to her professional

registration, a directive from the MFR,

and the authority given by her employer.

However, despite this authority there are

clearly constraints on her latitude of choice

which limit her overall discretion. For

instance, she can not adjust what portions

of the land base are designated as winter

range or dictate the boundaries of the

watershed. How does the general public

assess her conduct in this situation and

decide whether or not she has sufficiently

acted as an ethical agent on their behalf?

How will they form an understanding of her

ability to do what they feel she ought to do?

Assessing ethical accountability is not as

straightforward as simply judging a forest

professional’s competency or identifying an

obviously unethical choice. An assessment

that is fair to practitioners requires an

appreciation of their discretion. For example,

competency means that Sarah works within

her scope of practice and experience, and

that she also recognizes that the government,

her employer, the land use plan, the local

community, and the Aboriginal group

represent interests and values that ought to

be considered. Discretion means identifying

both the authority that she has been given

and the latitude of choice that she possesses.

Sarah’s sense of discretion may not

be strong enough to affect land claims

negotiations or to avoid disturbance to the

watershed while remaining consistent with

the winter range constraints of the land use

plan. As professionals we might say that she

is not at fault for failing to satisfy all of these

interests. However, the Aboriginal group

and the community may perceive a breach

of ethics given that Sarah is an ethical agent

and obligated to promote their interests.

As a professional Sarah must not only

meet with these groups so that she can

comprehend their interests; she must also

help them understand her discretionary

limitations. Ethical accountability is

only partially about ensuring that your

actions meet social expectations. A

professional must also manage these

expectations, and work to bridge any gap

between what the public feels you ought

to do and what you know you can do. 3

Steve Baumber, RPF, has worked professionally

for over a decade and is currently completing

an MSc (Forestry) at UBC researching

professional ethics from the practitioner’s

perspective. He is also a new dad.


ATeaching Ethical Conduct and the Lost Wallet DebateA few years ago I was driving a van of

third-year students back to the university

after a field trip. A lively discussion was going

on behind me hypothetically considering

what you should do if you found a wallet with

considerable cash. I was surprised at the

tone of the discussion. Although there was a

wide range of opinions, there was a general

acceptance that the owner of the wallet

owed the finder something. One person even

suggested that perhaps a reward should be

taken from the wallet before returning it.

This incident underscored that ethics is

a sense of responsibility commonly referred

to as ‘doing the right thing.’ Although we

often separate ethics into categories such

as ‘professional ethics’ and ‘land ethics,’ at

the end of the day, what we try to teach the

students is that they must always ‘do the right

thing.’ The incident pointed out that there are

two thresholds: the societal threshold and the

personal threshold. Each student thought it

was wrong to keep something that does not

belong to you (societal threshold), but they

differed in whether a fee should be extracted

(personal threshold). Each forest professional

must recognize the two thresholds and

abide by the higher of the two standards. As

educators, we force students to confront

and define their own personal standards

while making clear the societal standards.

The association, as a society, sets a

standard with the Code of Ethics. Students

must understand that the code is a very good

standard and that their actions must never

fall below it. On the other hand, they must

recognize that the Code of Ethics should not

be considered only as a specific regulation;

they must abide by not only the letter of

the law, but also the spirit of the law. In

addition, they must be able to defend their

personal standards if their own threshold

exceeds the code in certain situations.

Within UBC’s curriculum for the program

in Forest Resources Management, teaching

of ethics begins in the required course,

Sustainable Forests, taught in the first

semester of the first year. Students discuss

and then write essays in

response to both

Leopold’s1 essay

on land ethics

and Pinchot’s2

essay on forest

management

which present

different slants on forest

management ethics. In addition,

discussion is focussed on the broad

subject of ethics by introducing another

set of societal standards, academic ethics.

Discussion of topics such as plagiarism

makes clear the concept of ethical standards.

A required course for second year

students, Foundations of Conservation,

continues the discussions begun in the first

year. Students are forced to address the

responsibilities assumed by forest managers

as ‘keepers’ of the world’s forest resources

and all that is affected by their decisions.

Hands-on training in ethics is also very

much included in the coastal field school,

which students take after classes conclude

in the spring of the third year. Students

work in crews developing specific plans

for small parcels of land. Working in these

small groups brings both professional

and land ethics to the forefront.

Ethics are addressed very specifically in

the capstone course on forest management

planning, Sustainable Forest Management.

A specific module lasting about six weeks

covers both land and professional ethics

and closes with the association’s Code

of Ethics. Much of the teaching is done

through case studies where the acceptable

actions may not be completely clear. The

additional responsibility, for almost all

professionals in British Columbia, to

manage a set of resources directly owned

by the public is made explicit. This

module, ably led in the past by ABCFP staff,

includes discussion on what professions

are and the need for professions using

examples from not only forestry, but other

professions such as law and medicine.

Faculty

members

are urged to

include ethical

discussions

in each of their

courses. Most

important is the

education that students get

while observing faculty members.

We strive to set the example of

maintaining the highest personal

standards in all our activities. In all our

courses we try to never miss an opportunity

to demonstrate the need to ‘do the right

thing.’ As faculty members we openly discuss

this responsibility among ourselves.

The van discussion showed that these

students understood the two ethical

thresholds; they knew that there was a

basic societal expectation to return the

wallet. In this case, society held the finder

to a very low standard because no explicit

conditions to this action, but personal

standards could add conditions. Some felt

that it was necessary to expend effort, but

expected compensation to reunite the

wallet and the owner. Others thought that as

finders, they were obligated to do everything

possible (without compensation) to return

the wallet. As forest professionals we have

basic societal obligations, but each of us

must also recognize what obligations we

feel individually. We hope that students’

individual standards are high, but ensure

that they understand the association’s base,

the Code of Ethics, as guidance as to the

expectations of all forestry professionals. 3

1Leopold, Aldo, “Land Ethic,” in Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977),

2Pinchot, Gifford, “Principles of Conservation” in The Fight for Conservation, (New York, Doubleday Press, 1910).

Bruce Larson, PhD, ABCFP Honourary

Member, is head of the Forest Resources

Management Department and the FRBC Chair

of Silviculture in the Faculty of Forestry at UBC.

Viewpointsby Bruce Larson, PhD,

ABCFP Honourary Member


I am currently working on a project with

BC Treaty 8 Nations. With some exceptions, I

hear little good about the forest professionals

they deal with on various plans. Let me

share one story. One elder met with a forestry

company’s RPF to discuss harvest plans in

the elder’s hunting areas. The elder took time

to explain how important hunting was for

himself and for his great-grandchildren. He

explained how his grandparents had hunted

in the same area and how difficult it was now

to find moose given the developments on the

land (oil and gas exploration and wells, coal

and copper mines, coalbed methane, wind

farms, pipelines and forestry). Finally, he

explained how concerned he was about a

proposed cutblock in an area still relatively

untouched. The RPF told him to go hunt

somewhere else. The elder threw the RPF

out of the band office. What does this story

tell us about the state of forestry ethics?

Perhaps not much if this was an

isolated incident. However, while I have

met forest professionals who try to work

honourably with the First Nations, it is

my experience that variations of this

incident are common. Was it rudeness

or an ethical violation? The First Nations

certainly think violation and I am inclined

to agree. By your own Code of Ethics, forest

professionals are obliged to protect forest

values “that have been assigned by society.”

First Nations are part of society and their

values are routinely devalued or ignored.

Why are First Nation and other social

values devalued or outright ignored?

An interesting question and I can only

speculate. Some of that answer might lie

in your Code of Ethics. For example, the

interpretive guidelines state that society

means the “public of British Columbia as

represented by Government.” A first year

political science student can list ten reasons

why a government, even a democratically

elected government, can not be presumed

to fully represent the values of the society

it governs. It is worth remembering that

governments seek to do two things: increase

revenues and get re-elected. Both goals

cater to well-heeled special interests such

as multinational forestry companies. Forest

professionals risk misunderstanding social

values if they rely upon what governments

mandate. They further risk on-going social

protest over logging, poor relations with

First Nations and a profound fundamental

violation of their code which advocates

good stewardship. Forest professionals are

thus in an ethical bind before they have

moved beyond Section 3.1 of their code.

Nor can government, consultation or

a Code of Ethics guarantee a professional

accepts those values as valid and reasonable

or even understands them. My discussions

with forestry students demonstrate this

problem. Most students, like most people,

have a poor ability to understand or accept

values outside of their own training or

experience. This is human nature, wars

are fought as a result. It is, however,

important that professionals recognize

this failing and work to overcome it. Not

doing so creates the sort of ethical violation

described above. While this is a challenge

to incorporate into a Code of Ethics, it is a

requirement for a good forest professional.

Forest professionals are supposed “to

practice good stewardship of forest land

based on sound ecological principles...”

How often have I heard students assert

that a certain practice is sound because

science says it’s so. How often have First

Nations complained to me that ‘science’ is

what is thrown back in their face when they

complain about an impact or a practice.

As if science, ecological or otherwise, is

always true, accurate and value free and

doesn’t change with time. While science, if

it is sound and not mediated by politics, as

it too often is, can provide a starting point

for better practice, it cannot be taken as

an ultimate arbitrator. It must be used

with common sense and an understanding

of its limits. But this is not what future

forest professionals are taught to believe.

A forest professional is expected to uphold

“professional principles above the demands

of employment.” It’s a fine thing to have in a

Code of Ethics, but as an assurance of good

professional conduct, it is a frail reed indeed.

As my students tell me, if they did that, how

could they feed their families or pay off their

student loans? Furthermore, how many forest

professionals would turn in a colleague,

knowing the suffering that colleague might

endure or the view that other colleagues

might then hold of them? Oh, I believe most

people, including forest professionals, want

to be good, to do the socially mediated ‘right

thing.’ But few will find the moral courage

to risk a job, a profession, or professional

acceptance when it comes right down to it.

Society is not kind to those who do. So we

tend to excuse ethical violations instead by

describing them as ‘a chance occurrence’ or

rationalizing it away saying, “they probably

had to do it because.” And this is only to

uphold existing rules and regulations. What

happens if an entire system is unsound?

Acknowledging and respecting the

concerns of others when it comes to choices

in the forest is a significant step. Learning

to listen to First Nations, take their ethical

concerns seriously and work with them to

achieve sound forest management, rather

than treating them as obstacles or necessary

checked boxes can be achieved in a number

of ways, the important requirement

is to make that first commitment.

Ethics are an individual choice. No one

can make you be ethical. A Code of Ethics

won’t make you ethical. But then, what other

hope do we have than in the choice of every

one of you? That is what I tell my students. 3

Annie Booth, PhD, MES, BA, MCIP, has taught

at UNBC since 1993, including courses on First

Nations Approaches to Resource Management

and Environmental and Professional

Ethics, both are required by forestry majors

(and apparently the most feared).

Viewpointsby Annie L. Booth, PhD, MES, BA, MCIP

Forest Professionals and Failures in Ethics

Pho

to: P

rince

Geo

rge

Citi

zen


TThe ABCFP’s professional ethics and

obligations workshop provides members with

the opportunity, through scenario discussion,

to resolve challenging ethical scenarios

covering a wide range of topics related to all

our members. Two sample scenarios below

give a sense of the discussion that takes place.

Communication Discrepancy at a Public MeetingDuring your presentation, an astute

stakeholder representative asks you some

questions which, when answered truthfully,

will contradict your boss’s previous

presentation. What should you do?

Key Points:

1. When making public presentations,

especially sensitive ones, it is essential to

be professionally independent by declaring

for whom you are speaking, describe the

pros and cons of the issue to demonstrate

your understanding and avoid suppressing

information, misrepresenting the facts and

discreditation (Bylaws 11.4.4 and 11.4.7).

2. Demonstrating independence from

special interest groups, majority

groups, your own self interest and your

employer will earn respect from your

audience (Bylaws 11.3.2 and 12.3.1).

3. When you find yourself in a circumstance

where ‘damage control’ is needed, it is best

to be open, put all the facts on the table,

demonstrate understanding of the issues

and admit any wrongdoing, rather than

assign blame, lie or avoid/evade issues.

Guidance Options:

1. If possible, take a coffee break before

your presentation and try to work

something out with your boss.

2. If the above does not work, you could

respectfully and tactfully disagree with

the boss when answering questions; say

that he or she hasn’t been as involved

with the project and may not know

all the facts. Before you do this, try to

take a few minutes to talk to your boss

about what you are about to say. After

this, you may want to get your boss to

answer the question. It is important

to note Bylaws 11.6.1 (abstain from

undignified public communication

with another member) and 11.6.2 (not

to unfairly criticize another member).

3. Since the boss’s presentation was a

surprise to you, it means that he or

she has not been engaging in open

communication with you. You need to

resolve this after the public meeting

(Bylaw 11.6.5 – share knowledge and

experience with other members).

4. You could defer answering the

question until later when you have

worked things out with your boss.

5. When answering the questions during

your presentation you need to be honest

and truthful in order to maintain

independence and earn public respect.

This may jeopardize your relationship

with your boss and possibly your employer,

but maintaining professionalism will

minimize potential consequences.

Coverage of the Field SiteWhat criteria/considerations should

an RFT or RPF use to assess if the

amount of coverage by a field crew was

appropriate (i.e. Was there due care)?

Key Points:

• Relying on the work product of others

is fine as long as the coordinating forest

professional practises due diligence

(Bylaw 12.5.1).

• Each forest professional will have a

unique level of comfort when it comes

to the amount of due diligence applied

when relying on the work of others.

• The more due diligence you apply

(checking references, qualifications

and field work) to someone’s work, the

less risk you take with respect to being

held liable for unprofessional work.

• The local/regional/provincial

standard for carrying out work may

not necessarily be the professional

standard (Bylaw 12.2.3 – due care).

Guidance:

1. If the RFT or RPF was satisfied with the

experience and qualifications of the

field crew and this was documented,

he or she may have carried out an

appropriate amount of due care.

2. To minimize liability risk, the RFT or RPF

could have done the work or field check the

work and coverage done by the field crew.

3. When you walk out of the block at the

end of the day or put your signature

and seal/stamp to a professional work

product you must be confident that the

work has been done to professional

standards (Bylaw 11.4.1). If you are not

comfortable with totally or partially

relying on someone else’s work, increase

the level of due diligence and due care

when carrying out quality assurance.

Successful implementation of results-based

forest practices legislation, policy and

non-statutory expectations in BC depend

upon resource professionals applying the

principles of professional reliance. This

professional ethics and obligations workshop

provides basic guidance for resource

professionals to successfully engage in

the practice of professional reliance and

thus ensure forest practices legislation,

policy and expectations are successfully

implemented and appropriately considered.

Brian Robinson, RPF, facilitates the

workshop and leads ethical discussions based

on his provincial field experience. Brian plans

to take the workshop to many communities

in 2009 and is happy to deliver this workshop

by invitation. If you would like to organize a

professional ethics and obligations workshop

in your community, please contact Brian at

604.639.9187 or [email protected]. 3

Brian Robinson, RPF, has worked for the

association as manager of professional

development and member relations for

the past two years and before that he

was a consultant for 20 years, mainly

with Industrial Forestry Service Ltd. He

is also a past president of the ABCFP.

The ABCFP's Ethics and Obligations Workshop

Viewpointsby Brian Robinson, RPF

RegistRationBRochuRe

expoFor 2009 A Convenient Truth:

Be Part of the Forestry Solution

February 25 – 27, 2009Prince George, BC

Register online at www.expofor.ca

NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2008 | BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL

thanks toexpoFoR 2009

sponsoR

accoMMoDation speciaLsSpecial rates at Prince George area

hotels are available through OK

Reservations. Call the toll-free number

below and mention ExpoFor 2009 to

book accommodation at: Coast Inn

of the North; Days Inn and Ramada.

1.800.663.1900

paRtneRs’ pRogRaMExplore Prince George on your own! We

are pleased to offer partners’ discounts

and special offers at the following or-

ganizations. We encourage you to book

your visit before you arrive in Prince

George. Please see our website for more

details (www.expofor.ca).

• The Exploration Place at the Fraser-

Fort George Regional Museum

• Pepper Tree Hair Salon

• Spa of the North

• Tabor Mountain Ski Resort

• Two Rivers Gallery

• Zen Garden Relaxation Centre

9:00 am - 4:00 pm Ethics and Obligations Brian Robinson, RPF, ABCFP lunch is included in this workshop

12:00 - 9:00 pm Registration Desk open

1:00 - 5:00 pm Professional Reliance (a repeat of the Fall Workshops) Mike Larock, RPF, ABCFP

expoFor 2009 Begins

5:00 - 7:00 pm Beer and Burgers with CNC and UNBC students

Purchase your tickets for this fundraiser directly from the students when you arrive at ExpoFor.

7:00 - 10:00 pm Icebreaker Join your friends and colleagues on the trade show floor for drinks and snacks to kick off ExpoFor 2009.

WednesdayFebruary 25, 2009

optional pre-conference Workshops

Register Online at:www.expofor.ca

BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL | NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2008

6:30 am Registration Desk open until 7:00 pm

7:00 - 8:00 am Chief Forester's Breakfast Jim Snetsinger, RPF, Chief Forester, Ministry of Forests and Range

8:00 am Trade Show Open until 9:00 pm

8:00 - 9:00 am Official Welcome to ExpoFor 2009

The Potential of the Forest Sector to Contribute to

9:00 - 9:45 am Climate Mitigation Strategies

Werner Kurtz, PhD, Natural Resources Canada

10:30 - 11:45 am Breakout Sessions

Choose one of two sessions. Please note that seating is limited and you are advised to arrive early to the session of your choice.

1. Wood in the Marketplace Kelly McCloskey, RPF, Kelly McCloskey and Associates

2. Transitioning Forest Tenures in a Carbon Constrained Environment Jim Langridge, RPF, Ministry of Forests and Range Chief Corrina Leween, Cheslatta Carrier Nation Frank Caffrey, RPF, Timberline Natural Resources TBA, Wood Pellet Association of Canada

12:00 - 2:00 pm Inductees’ Recognition Luncheon

Join your collegues in welcoming the ABCFP's newest members.

2:15 - 3:00 pm ABCFP AGM

All members are invited to attend the 61st ABCFP AGM.

3:15 - 4:00 pm Council Hot Seat

4:20 - 5:15 pm Breakout Sessions

Choose one of three sessions. Please note that seating is limited and you are advised to arrive early to the session of your choice.

1. How Is Climate Change Affecting the Seed Transfer System? Brian Barber, RPF, Tree Improvement Branch Greg O’Neill, Research Branch

2. Potential Effects of Climate Change on Forest Hydrology & Geomorphology Robin Pike, Research Branch David Campbell, Coast Region, MFR

3. Transportation TBA

President’s Awards Banquet and Incoming7:00 - 10:00 pm President’s Address (semi-formal attire required)

Please join the president in recognizing significant contributions to forestry management by members and non-members. Allan Balogh, RPF, 61st ABCFP president Jonathan Lok, RFT, 62nd ABCFP president

10:00 pm - 12:00 am No-Host Bar and Mingling

6:30 am Registration Desk open until 12:00 pm

7:00 - 8:00 am Breakfast

8:00 am Trade Show open until 2:00 pm

8:15-9:15 am Lifecycle Analysis Representative from the BC Forestry Climate Change Working Group

9:30-10:30 am Breakout Sessions

Choose one of three sessions. Please note that seating is limited

and you are advised to arrive early to the session of your choice.

1. Community Partnerships TBA

2. Media Partnerships – Telling your Story Gordon Hoekstra, Prince George Citizen

3. BC Forest Safety Council Presentation TBA

10:45 - 11:45 am Resolutions Session

12:00 - 2:00 pm Minister’s Luncheon The Honourable Pat Bell, Minister of Forests and Range

2:00 pm Adjournment

thursdayFebruary 26, 2009

FridayFebruary 27, 2009

NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2008 | BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL

Registration Form

ABCFP Member #: Name: Affiliation (for your badge):

❏ RPF ❏ RPF(Ret) ❏ RFT ❏ RFT(Ret) ❏ FIT ❏ TFT ❏ FP ❏ Guest/Partner ❏ Other (select all that apply)

Note: Inductees and START subscribers must register online to receive discounts on registration fees.

Mailing Address: City:

Province: Postal Code: E-mail:

Phone: ❏ Work ❏ Home

Registration packages FEE FEE PAYMENT Before January 23 After January 23

1 Full Conference Package Thursday & Friday (all sessions, meals & events, incl. Icebreaker Wed.) $450 $575 $

2 One-Day Package Thursday (sessions & meals including President's Award Banquet) $300 $350 $

Friday (sessions & meals) $200 $250 $

3 Limited Conference Package Thursday and Friday (sessions only, no meals) $350 $400 $

4 ABCFP AGM only Thursday, 2:15 - 3:00 pm (Free, but registration required) $0 $0 $

pre-conference Workshops # OF TICKETS FEE PAYMENTEthics and Obligations Workshop ❏ $125 or ❏ $100 with Full Conference Package $

Professional Reliance Workshop ❏ $75 or ❏ $60 with Full Conference Package $

additional Meals These meals are in addition to those included in the registration packages. # OF TICKETS FEE PAYMENTIcebreaker Wednesday $40 $

Chief Forester's Breakfast Thursday $25 $

Inductees’ Recognition Luncheon Thursday $31 $

President’s Awards Banquet Thursday $45 $

Breakfast Friday $25 $

Minister’s Luncheon Friday $31 $

❏ Special dietary requirement (please specify and notify when checking in at registration desk):

ABCFP GST Registration # 13078662 Add 5% GST (unless GST exempt) $

TOTAL PAYMENT DUE $

gst exemptionAre you GST exempt? ❏ No ❏ Yes (if you are a provincial government employee, payment must be received from your employer to qualify for GST exemption and online registration is not permitted)

GST Exemption Declaration: This is to Certify that the property and/or services ordered/purchased hereby are being purchased by,

with Crown Funds, and are not, therefore, subject to the Goods and Services Tax.

Registration Desk HoursWednesday, February 25

12:00 to 9:00 pm

Thursday, February 26

6:30 am to 7:00 pm

Friday, February 27

6:30 am to 12:00 pm

Registration ContactMichelle Mentore

ABCFP

Ph: 604.639.9186

E-mail: [email protected]

Please Note• Youarenotregistered

until payment is received.

• Receiptswillbesent

to you via e-mail.

• A$50administrationfee

will apply to all refunds.

Alternate delegates

may be sent without

penalty if you are unable

to attend. Please advise

us of any substitutions

by February 18, 2009 to

allow time for new name

tags to be generated.

• Refundswillnotbegranted

after February 16, 2009.

payment optionsRegister and Pay Online: www.expofor.ca

Credit Card: Visa or MasterCard accepted

Cheque: Payable to the Association of BC Forest Professionals

Mail to: ABCFP Fax to: 604.687.3264 330 - 310 Water Street Vancouver, BC V6B 1B8

credit card informationCard#

❏ Visa ❏ MasterCard Expiration Date: (MM/YY)

Full name as it appears on the card:

Signature:

ExpoFor 200961st ABCFP Forestry Conference and Annual General Meeting

A Convenient Truth: Be Part of the Forestry SolutionFebruary 25 – 27, 2009

Prince George, BC

(Name of Provincial/Territorial Government Department or Institution)

GST Exemption Number Signature of Authorized Official

Note New Address

W

BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL | NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2008

W


ViewpointsViewpointsby Warren Warttig, RPBio

Wildlife and ethical considerations in

forestry were changed forever on June 13,

2003 when the College of Applied Biology

Act was signed into law. While the offi cial

reason for the Act is “To protect the public

and to guide the professional biologists

of BC,” the Act was also created to ensure

the phasing in of the new professional

reliance model for managing BC’s forests.

Under the Act, one of the most important

roles of the College is to make sure that

members practising applied biology in BC

have the necessary knowledge and skills.

With the Forest Range and Practices Act

(FRPA) and Forest Planning and Practices

Regulation now fully in place, so too is the

professional reliance model. If a professional

biologist wonders what their role is in this

model, they need only look at the fi rst section

in our Code of Ethics where it states “The

Professional Biologist who becomes aware

of any undertaking that is profoundly

detrimental to the sound management and

conservation of biological resources will

accept responsibility to advise a responsible

party.” Note the emphasis on advise, as it is

a very descriptive word for our role within

the forest industry and forest management.

A forest professional, on the other

hand, is charged with the responsibility

of balancing information from several

sources as outlined the ABCFP’s Code

of Ethics (Bylaw 11.3.1), “Recognize

and respect the many, and sometimes

competing, values and interests in forest

management and provide sound professional

judgment as to how to accommodate

these interests and values.” Within the

forest sector, the minimum responsibility

expected of an RPBio is to ensure that we

advise on meeting legal obligations.

Interfor has a coastal cut of roughly

two million cubic metres annually. With

an average cut block being around 20 ha

(at ± 700 m³/ha) that equates to over 140

cut blocks annually spread out over a large

area (South Island to North Coast Forest

Districts). This is a lot of area to manage.

So, as two full-time Interfor biologists

we have structured ourselves in a way to

effi ciently meet legal obligations. I focus

primarily on aquatic/fi sheries resources

and Wayne Wall, RPBio, focuses primarily

on wildlife. With this breakdown, we are

individually tasked with specializing in

the applicable sections of legislation.

We also work through a multi-scale

approach working from a coarse scale

(regional/landscape unit) down to medium

(watershed/sub-basin) and fine scale (block/

site) and rely heavily on other biological

professionals throughout all levels of scale.

For example, a coarse scale management

to meet a section 7 notice for marbled

murrelet includes an aspatial analysis of

available habitat and tracking reductions

of the total amount. In contrast, a fi ne

scale includes spatially identifying wildlife

habitat areas. Information gathering

at the different levels is an important

component, but equally important is

the training of staff in identifi cation

and specifi c management requirements

pertaining to a biological resource.

But even though the law is met, this is

not where our ethical obligations cease.

Where we recognize a defi ciency in the

legal requirements to fully protect a

biological resource, we have an obligation

to advise corrective actions. We also tend

to advise on nice-to-do items like replacing

a culvert that is not functioning as well

as it could. All of this fi ts well with our

forest certifi cation requirements, which

exceeds most legal requirements.

With the advent of forest certifi cation,

there was a noted increase in demand for

professional biological advice. However, since

the professional reliance model became fully

implemented, which has the result of placing

greater responsibility on the individual

forest professional, we have experienced

an even greater increase in demand. In my

experience there has also been an increased

level of implementation of the advice we

give—a sure sign that the professional

reliance and ethics model is working.

Warren Warttig is a planning biologist with

Interfor. He is responsible for authoring

and implementing the aquatic sections

of Interfor's Forest Stewardship Plans,

operational planning and research. He

has over 25 years experience in forestry,

watershed ecology and fi sheries.

Biology, Forestry and Ethics:Professionals Working Together in BC's Forests

At the time he was writing this

article, Warren received news that

one of his colleagues had been

killed in a workplace accident. He

asks that everyone remember how

important it is to be safe every day.

The Importance of SafetyThe week of August 25th started

horribly when we were informed that

Tyler O’Farrell, one of our young for-

est engineers, had died heading out

of the bush at the end of a fi eld day.

While the investigation has not been

completed yet, the circumstances in

which the accident occurred seem

entirely innocuous, yet somehow the

consequence was extreme. A very

cruel reminder that one should never

take safety for granted when working

in the fi eld.

Please see Tyler's obituary on page 24.


Viewpointsby Doug Konkin, RPF, Deputy Minister,

Ministry of Forests and Range

Ethics in government has been a

topical item over the last few years and

declining trust in government is a common

phenomenon in many democracies. Why

is this? Have governments grown more

untrustworthy? Is it impossible to meet

public expectations in a complex world with

polarized views? Does anyone care and what

does any of that have to do with forestry?

The debate over ethics is a healthy one

and we are fortunate to live in a society

where it can occur openly and where we

can vote out a government we believe is

unethical. That is a privilege that does not

exist everywhere in the world. In parts of

the world it is the norm that government

administrators will get a piece of the action

and/or social unrest makes it impossible

to do some of the simple transactions we

take for granted. When you travel the world

you realize that public service matters.

I am going to answer my questions in

reverse order: does anyone care about ethics

in forestry? History says yes. From the start of

organized forestry in North America to today,

there have been debates about public good

and the balance between nature and people.

Early on, Gifford Pinchot coined the phrase

“greatest good for the greatest number”

and since then we have been embroiled

in an evolving search for the most good.

It is as clear today as in was in Pinchot’s

day that success in the controversial,

contentious and value laden realm of

natural resource management requires

scientific knowledge, constant learning

and ethical behaviour. Ethics without

scientific knowledge or knowledge

without ethics would be insufficient to

meet our professional obligations to

manage the forests. Learning makes it

possible for us to adapt and evolve as the

public values and expectations change.

What does government do to meet public

expectations for ethical behaviour in such a

complex world? It used to be simpler: fewer

values and expectations, and less knowledge

made it easier to establish rules. Today, we

realize the right approach requires a mix of

information at multiple scales. It requires an

understanding of the higher level objectives

of society and knowledge of how to best

apply those to the specific bio-physical

characteristics of a given piece of land.

In today’s world we use a mix of

prescription and enforcement – establishing

clear standards and accountabilities

where appropriate and using choice based

adherence – inspired by involvement,

education, values, leadership and

organizational cultures. Inside government

we take an oath of office and have

clear guidelines for conflict of interest;

accounting practices, confidentiality, etc.

We also have legislation, such as Section

4 of the Ministry of Forests and Range Act

that outlines the purposes and functions of

the ministry and current societal values.

To reflect the fact that Pinchot’s good

is a fundamental, intuitive concept that is

difficult to apply to any given piece of land,

we rely on public input and societal views to

help establish strategic objectives. Science

impacts forest policy from the bottom-up and

at the practice and stand level, we require

forest professionals to apply their knowledge

within a defined legal framework of

responsibilities and ethical requirements. We

have an independent Forest Practices Board

and an Ombudsman to check and inform

us on our practices and to help us learn.

We also have continued research,

monitoring and effectiveness evaluations to

ensure that our forest management practices

are effective and up-to-date. This scientific

work informs of us of new areas of ethical

uncertainty and helps government to identify

and take action to provide strategic guidance

to forest professionals and managers.

In the end, the goal is to promote good

thinking, analysis and learning,

and if the system is working properly,

resource managers will:

• know the physical and biological

consequences of actions or inaction;

• operate in a manner consistent

with personal, organizational

and societal values; and

• serve a role that is consistent with

their assigned purpose and role.

What about declining trust of governments

by the public? Is it inevitable in a world where

stakeholders have no problem advocating

oversimplified solutions; in a world where

people view nature as static and have been

sold on the concepts such as old growth being

inherently better than early successional

forests; in a global world where governments

control so much less than people are used to?

I hope not. We are blessed with government

that is fundamentally honest and responsive;

the degree of responsiveness is directly

related to our willingness to get involved.

Ethical behaviour requires

uncompromising leadership, clear

accountabilities and integration of values

into day to day functioning. That is best

supported by strong public participation,

high expectations, and constant vigilance.

As for me, I boil personal ethics down

to a few rules: tell the truth as you know

it, be honest when the going gets tough,

and do what you say you will do. 3

Doug Konkin, RPF, was appointed Deputy Minister, Ministry of Forests on June 30, 2003, currently called Ministry of Forests and Range. He worked as a resource technician, district manager, executive director and ADM before becoming the deputy minister.

How the Government Applies Ethics to Forestry


Viewpointsby David Flood, RPF

AThe Ethical Aspects of Ecosystem-Based Management

“As long as the sun shines, the river

flows and the grass grows.” This phrase

accompanies many of the original numbered

treaties in Canada that reflects the binding

commitments of the parties to the treaty.

I find it fitting to use here in the context

of ecosystem-based management (EBM)

because in simplest terms EBM gives forest

professionals more room to follow the

ethical standards of our profession. It is a

long-term process with commitments that

will also apply as long as the sun shines,

the river flows and the grass grows.

Ecosystem-based management

and forestry ethics are bound together

because EBM means giving a voice to:

• The people and businesses whose

livelihoods depend on forestry.

• The people who want to save

all the forest we have left.

• The animals that live in the forest.

• The tourist who come to see our forests.

• The provincial and First Nations

governments.

There are a lot of voices, I haven’t listed

them all here, and they all need to be heard.

That’s what ecosystem-based management

is meant to do—bring all the people involved

with the forest together and get them

talking to each other. Doing this helps forest

professionals enforce the ethical standards

of the profession because they are hearing

all sides of the story and are advocating

for both ecological integrity (maintaining

animal habitat) and human well-being

(keeping people employed and healthy).

As we understand more about ecosystem

function, health and distribution, we realize

that past timber harvesting, if continued,

would not sustain ecological integrity. The

EBM system was developed to continue the

evolution of forest and land management and

create a new conservation plan for the region.

Now parks, conservancy areas and forest

tenures are bound together so harvesting

opportunities are just one outcome not the

sole driver. This reflects the mandate set

forth in the Code of Ethics “to advocate and

practice good stewardship of forest land

based on sound ecological principles.”

As EBM develops, it is shaping

forestry and ethics. As recently as April

2008, the Integrated Land Management

Bureau produced, Background and Intent

Document for the South Central Coast

and North Coast Land Use Objectives

Orders. This document explains what

the intent of the Land Use Objectives1

(LUOs) are without being prescriptive or

limiting the accountability or flexibility

of professionals and decision makers.

The LUOs can be seen as a reflection

of the public interest resulting from the

seven-year Land and Resource Management

Plan (LRMP) process and the subsequent

government-to-government land use decision

announcement on February 7, 2006. As the

legal transition continues there will be a

need and benefit to have the Integrated

Land Management Bureau and the Ministry

of Forest and Range continue as active

partners in the discussion. This will assist

forest professionals with understanding

the link between EBM and the emerging

adaptive management framework and

allow the profession to effectively deliver

on its Code of Ethics responsibilities.

Forest harvesting opportunities in the

Central and North Coast LRMP area are

distributed over a number of operators

across many landscapes/watersheds. In

many landscape units there are more than

one licensee and due to the multi-scale

nature of implementing, EBM will require

forest professionals to fully contemplate

all aspects of their responsibilities. The

LUOs have specific requirements at the

landscape unit, watershed and stand/site

level. Our members will be needed to build

on existing First Nation/local community

engagement, effectively collaborate and

engage with other members and members

of other professions to generate assessments

at various scales, and assess the outcomes

and recommendations of the assessments

to reflect the client or employer interest.

What’s really exciting is that EBM and

its implementation is an ongoing process.

Coast Forest Conservation Initiative2, one

of the EBM leaders, was created by five

forestry companies to participate in the

development of a conservation plan for

forests within the Central and North Coast.

The collaborative nature of the process and

the role of the forest professional is why I

got involved. Forestry is seen as the highest

risk factor to ecological integrity acting on

the land. This is a healthy investment by the

forestry sector to prove their work towards

ecological integrity and human well-being.

As long as the sun shines, the river

flows and the grass grows, humans

will need to make compromises with

the plants, animals and other humans

with which we share the earth. The

implementation of EBM allows us to

evaluate and implement these compromises

by following our ethical standards. 3

1 LUO Requirements: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/cencoast/plan/objectives/index.html

2 Coast Forest Conservation Initiative: www.coastforestconservationinitiative.com

David Flood, RPF, currently works under a ser-vice agreement with Coast Forest Conservation Initiative as an EBM Implementation Coordina-tor. He finds implementing the long term vision embedded in the Coast Land Use Decision chal-lenging and enjoyable.


IIn a classic Warner Brothers cartoon,

Porky Pig fends off a rather large and

hairy monster with a pair of clippers

only to find out in the end that it

was “all hair and tennis shoes.”

The decision of the British Columbia Supreme

Court in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia

(which I will refer to as the Tsilhqot’in

Decision) may be of concern and interest

to British Columbian forestry professionals

because it raises important issues regarding

control of both Crown and private land and the

resources on them. Weighing in at nearly 500

pages, Mr. Justice Vickers’ decision may seem

like a monster. It certainly is intimidating to

sit down and read. However, as with Porky

Pig’s monster, not all is what it appears to be.

I won’t pretend to provide the last word in

interpreting this decision. Likely others could,

and have, read the judgment with equal care

and come to some very different conclusions.

With that caveat in mind, in this column I will

briefly outline the content of the decision and

attempt to lay to bed some myths that have

already started to spring up regarding the

impact of the decision on British Columbians.

To start, I think it is important to reflect on

the specific dispute in this case as well as to

discuss what the Court means when it talks

about ‘Aboriginal rights‘ and ‘Aboriginal title.’

This decision, at its centre, is a dispute

over logging. It began in 1992 when members

of the Tsilhqot'in Nation set up a blockade

aimed to stop forest developments that would

result in clear cutting activities taking place

in the area known as the Brittany Triangle

(Tachelach'ed in the Tsilhqot'in tongue).

The Tsilhqot'in Nation was concerned that

current logging activities on their traditional

territory provided them with little economic

benefit and that the planned logging

would negatively impact their hunting and

trapping activities that took place there.

Out of that conflict, Chief Roger William of

the Xeni Gwet'in brought an action on behalf

of the Tsilhqot'in Nation seeking a declaration

for Aboriginal title and certain Aboriginal

rights within their traditional territory.

Aboriginal title and rights are

constitutionally protected in Canada.

The legal concepts of ‘Aboriginal

title’ and ‘Aboriginal rights’ have been

developing through the Canadian

courts over the past 130 years.

Aboriginal rights are communally held

rights that evolve from traditional practices

exercised by a First Nation at the time of

first contact with Europeans. The rights

have to be a part of what made up and make

up the First Nation's ‘distinct society’ but

can evolve to take advantage of current

technologies and economic drivers.

Aboriginal title is now recognized as

being a specific subset of Aboriginal rights

that grants to First Nations the right to the

exclusive use and occupation of their title

lands, the right to choose how the resources

located there can be used (subject to certain

limits) and the right to be compensated for

the infringement of or interference with that

title. Aboriginal title is held communally and

cannot be alienated (sold) by the First Nation

to third parties. Additionally, the use to which

the title land is put must be consistent with

the nature of the title. For example, using title

The Tsilhqot’in Decision: All Hair and Tennis Shoes?


Interestby Jason Fisher, LLB

lands to provide housing for members of the

First Nation would likely be consistent with

Aboriginal title but using the land to develop

a ski resort would not likely be consistent.

Both Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal title

have to be proven on a First Nation-by-First

Nation basis. Finding that one First Nation has

established an Aboriginal right does not mean

that any other First Nation has that right.

Because the existence of Aboriginal

rights and title is a factual conclusion to be

reached by a judge, Aboriginal rights and

title are established through the examination

of anthropological, archaeological and

historical evidence as well as through

the oral histories of a First Nation.

In the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s case, after

339 trial days, thousands of documents,

hours of argument and nearly 15 years,

Mr. Justice Vickers handed down his

decision on November 20, 2007.

As noted earlier, the judgment is nearly

500 pages long and has already spawned

at least two full-day legal conferences

discussing and dissecting it. However, much

of the debate is focussed on the way Mr.

Justice Vickers reached his decision rather

than what the decision says. The main

conclusions reached by Mr. Justice Vickers

can be fairly simply broken down as follows:

• the Tsilhqot’in Nation proved “an

Aboriginal right to hunt and trap birds and

animals throughout the Claim Area for

the purpose of securing animals for work

and transportation, food, clothing, shelter,

mats, blankets and crafts as well as for

spiritual, ceremonial, and cultural uses”

(page 407). This bundle of rights includes

the right to capture and use wild horses;

• the Tsilhqot’in Nation also established

an Aboriginal right “to trade in skins and

pelts as a means of securing a moderate

livelihood” (page 414);

• forest development activities undertaken

or authorized by the province had

infringed on the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s

Aboriginal rights (page 421); and

• in order justify the infringement on the

Tsilqot’in Nation’s Aboriginal rights, the

province would have to:

- demonstrate that managing for wildlife

abundance and diversity was a priority in

respect to forestry activities, and

- “collect sufficient credible information

to allow a proper assessment of the impact

[of forest harvesting activities] on the

wildlife in the area” (page 423).

In dealing with the issue of infringement,

Mr. Justice Vickers made some highly criti-

cal observations about the management of

forests in BC. He observed, for example, that:

• forest harvesting activities, which

include logging and all other silviculture

practices, reduce the number of different

wildlife species (diversity) and the number of

individuals within each species (abundance)

in a landscape… through: 1) direct mortality;

2) the imposition of roads; and, 3) the

destruction of habitat (page 417).

and:

• there is no doubt that the Ministry [of

Forests and Range] seeks to maximize the

economic return from provincial forests. On

the evidence I heard during this trial, the

protection and preservation of wildlife for the

continued well-being of Aboriginal people is

very low on the scale of priority. (page 420)

On the issue of sustainable forestry,

he concluded that:

“My assessment of the evidence leads

me to conclude that provincial foresters do

practice sustainable management, within

a narrow definition of sustainability. The

main focus is on timber management and

sustainability of the forest resource. … Any

model of sustainability that is driven solely

by an economic engine is deficient if it is

incapable of taking into account social

values. This is particularly true where the

model of sustainability affects Aboriginal

people whose social values are so intricately

connected to the land, (page 426).”

Despite these harsh words for the forest

industry, the more confusing conclusion

of Mr. Justice Vickers, and the one that

has resulted in the most misinformation

and misinterpretation, is the finding that

the Tsilhqot’in Nation proved Aboriginal

title to a portion of their traditional

territory but were not entitled to an

enforceable declaration of Aboriginal title

due to the way the case was pleaded.

Although Mr. Justice Vickers found that

he could not give the Tsilhqot’in Nation a

declaration of title, he went on to assess

the evidence of title and to express a non-

binding opinion that title had been proven

in relation to certain parts of the Claim

Area and certain parts outside of the Claim

Area. He also found that the Forest Act would

not apply to Aboriginal title lands and that

private land granted by the province within

Aboriginal title lands would be subject

to Aboriginal title. The impact that this

finding would have on private land owners,

if it is correct and if it were enforceable,

is unknown, a view Mr. Justice Vickers

expressed in his judgment at page 323.

The intent in providing this detailed,

non-binding opinion was to encourage

the parties to negotiate a settlement and

a mutual recognition of the Tsilhqot’in

Nation’s Aboriginal title rather than

have the matter come back through the

court system. However, the net result

is that the issue of who controls the

land remains uncertain at this time.

Mr. Justice Vickers’ opinions regarding

Aboriginal title do not have the force of

law, although they may influence the way

future court cases are argued and future

land claims are negotiated. In addition, it is

my understanding that the parties to this

case are still in negotiation, so it remains to

be seen what lasting effect the conclusions

contained in the decision will have.

I would like to think that this simple

analysis has clipped this monster decision

down to size. My fear is, however, that when

you realize how little was actually decided in

this case it simply reaffirms how unsettled

the issue of land ownership remains in British

Columbia as long as there are outstanding

Aboriginal land claims to be negotiated or

litigated. The Tsilhqot’in Decision may be

mostly ‘hair and tennis shoes’ but the real

monster, lack of certainty, is still out there. 3

Jason Fisher, LLB, is an associate at the law firm of Davis LLP in Vancouver. Jason practises in the areas of forestry and natural resource law. If you have a question or comment in relation to this article or any other legal matter, please contact Jason by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 604.643.6437.

The opinions contained in this column are the opinions of

the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of

Davis LLP or the Association of British Columbia Forest

Professionals. This article does not constitute legal advice.


Forestry Team in ActionTenure Holders Share Information to the Benefi t of All

Forest tenure holders in the Kalum Forest District are saving time

and money by sharing information. Many of the licencees operate

within the same planning units, where there are limits on how much

area can be of a certain age and the number of blocks that can be

of a certain size. Normally, each licencee would have to do its own

analysis of what has been reported as logged and then decide if its

planned operations might exceed the limits for the planning unit.

By sharing and combining information on recent logging areas,

the licencees are able to see what the current cumulative impact

is on the area. They then add in all the proposed operations and

‘grow’ the forest (by adding fi ve years to its age) to see whether there

are any areas that might be of concern in the future. The analysis

also takes into account special management zones from the Kalum

Sustainable Resource Management Plan. By sharing information,

there only has to be one analysis of this type, and it can be updated

each year. The information is also shared with the Ministry of Forests

and Range and allows compliance and enforcement staff to easily

monitor cumulative impacts. This successful format has also been

adopted by the licencee group in the North Coast Forest District.

ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVEDA&A Trading Ltd, BC Timber Sales, Canada Resurgence Developments Ltd, Coast Tsimshian

Resources Corporation, Haisla Resources LP, Kalum Ventures Ltd, Kitselas Forest Products Ltd,

West Fraser Mills Ltd

PROJECT FUNDINGForest Investment Account

CONTACTRick Brouwer, RPFNorthwest Timberlands Ltd.


Skeena Network of Forest ProfessionalsDevelop Interpretive Trail Guide

This year, the Skeena Network of Forest Professionals developed

an interpretive guide for an area of a community park in Terrace

in order to provide information about its natural resources. The

guide follows the west side of Ferry Island, beginning at the

playground and ending at the southern end of the main trail. It

identifi es some of the many amazing features on Ferry Island.

This interpretive trail guide formed the basis for a se-

ries of walks during the Terrace Riverboat Days celebration

August 1 – 10, 2008. Over 70 people participated in the walks.

Members of the Skeena Network of Forest Professionals used

this opportunity to reach out to the community and they were

warmly received with many appreciative comments.

Future plans include posting signs at each stop of the guided trail

and expanding the interpretive guide to describe the rest of the park.

PROJECT TEAMRick Brouwer, RPF; Jacques Corstanje, RPF; Brian Downie, RPF; Mike Folkema, RPF; Tony Kelly,

RPF; Rod Meredith, RPF, and Linda Wilson.

ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVEDSkeena Network of Forest Professionals, Riverboat Days Committee and BC150.

CONTACTRick Brouwer, RPFNorthwest Timberlands Ltd.



Special Feature

Successful Gitxsan Forest Tenure and Business Workshop in Hazelton, BC

Operating a forest business in northwestern BC has been a risky

enterprise in recent years. The Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs (GHC) office

and the Ministry of Forests and Range’s Skeena Stikine Forest District

therefore tailored a recent workshop to begin working on the challen-

ges inherent in forestry and other businesses in the northwestern BC.

The workshop featured panels from the First Nations, academic,

consultant, industry and government communities discussing suc-

cessful and unsuccessful First Nations businesses, governance models

which supported those businesses, marketing and diversification of

forest products, development of other associated businesses, and the

obligations and organization required to support a forest tenure.

Time for productive group discussion was provided and

further work is underway to plan tenure implementation. A

binder of the presentations was compiled and will be a valu-

able reference for more intensive work in future. Feedback

from presenters and the GHC representatives indicated that

the workshop provided an excellent overview and sound advice

for those wanting to start viable forestry-based businesses.

The GHC were offered the opportunity to apply for one or more

non-replaceable forest licenses for up to 1.2 million cubic metres

of timber over a five-year term. Capacity is also being created in

silviculture businesses, research and development of plans related

to bioenergy production, carbon credits and other initiatives.

For more information about the workshop’s outcomes,

please contact Cameron Stevens or Sue McDiarmid, RPF.

ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVEDGitxsan Hereditary Chiefs, the Ministry of Forests and Range’s Skeena Stikine Forest District.

CONTACTSCameron StevensGitxsan Treaty Society

Ph: 250.842.6780

Sue McDiarmid, RPFSkeena Stikine Forest District

Ph: 250.847.6300


Much to Celebrate for the Coast Region FRPA Implementation Team

The Coast Region FRPA Implementation Team (CRIT) is a multi-

licensee/agency professional-based team whose primary purpose

is to achieve industry and government’s broad goals and objec-

tives under FRPA. Last fall CRIT sponsored a workshop in Tofino

on the use of high retention silvicultural systems. Monitoring of

blocks harvested under a high retention silvicultural system was

completed and evaluated against the CRIT discussion paper on

the subject. The monitoring team also provided advice, mentoring

and field evaluations to help professionals develop silviculture

prescriptions in difficult stand types. The results of these efforts

are showing up in the field with the implementation of innovative

forest practices. CRIT also completed a new hardwood management

strategy for the coast and started work on several new products.

In June 2008, members celebrated their accomplishments and

participated in the annual summer field tour in Campbell River. The

theme for this gathering was professionalism. Guest speakers included

Jim Snetsinger, RPF, Ministry of Forests & Range Chief Forester,

Mike Larock, RPF, ABCFP Director of Professional Practice & Forest

Stewardship, and industry representatives. During the session, Mike

announced that the ABCFP endorsed the CRIT discussion paper,

Silvicultural System and Partial Cut Harvesting Issues in the Coast

Forest Region, as a professional document and a good resource for

professionals engaging in partial harvesting silviculture systems.

A field trip the following day included stops to discuss inde-

pendent power proposals, hardwood management, use of high

retention silvicultural systems, second growth and strategic

timber management planning, and opportunity wood.

CONTACTSHal Reveley, RPFCo-chair CRIT


Joe LeBlanc, RPFCo-chair CRIT


Websitehttp://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rco/stewardship/CRIT/index.htm


Special Feature

Forests for Tomorrow Program

Over 25 forest professionals from the Ministry of Forests and Range

and their recipients (including Forsite), are involved in planning and

delivering the Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) program. FFT is a long-term

program aimed at improving the future timber supply and restoring en-

vironmental values through strategically implemented silviculture treat-

ments. Part of FFT involves priority selection of stands for rehabilitative

treatment based on Return on Investment measures and other priorities.

This program was initiated in 2004 by the BC government

to address reforestation of areas severely damaged by the major

wildfires of 2003 and the mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic.

Many of these stands have questionable merchantability and Forest

Licence to Cut (FLTC) licences have being set up to facilitate

overstory removal with rehabilitative reforestation treatments.

The budget for the program has increased from $22 million

to $44 million to date, and is expected to reach to $54 million in

2010. By the end of the current field season, 15 million seedlings

over 16,000 ha will be planted and 340,000 ha will be assessed/

surveyed on 22 management units currently receiving funding.

In addition to employing innovative silviculture activities,

FFT also looks for ways to increase the amount and quality of First

Nations participation in the program and create forestry jobs in MPB

impacted communities. Engagement with partners and implement-

ing adaptive management are important aspects to this program.

PROJECT TEAMArbourTech Forest Management: Oliver Thomae, RPF

BA Blackwell and Associates Ltd: Bruce Blackwell, RPF; Rob Sandberg, RPF

Erafor Forestry Ltd: Keith Little, RPF; Cezary Sluocki

Forsite: Kim Peel, RPF; Mike Bandstra, RPF

Ministry of Community Development, Ministry of EnvironmentMinistry of Forest and Range: FFT staff in Forest Practices Branch, SIFR and NIFR with

support from Forest Districts

Okanagan Nation Alliance: Heather Onsorge

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPTrue Blue Ventures: Joanne Leesing, RPF, Treena Greenaway, RPF

CONTACTSKim Peel, RPF, Forsite Ph: 250.832.3366

Alanya Smith, Ministry of Forests and Range Email: [email protected]

Kamloops Future Forest Strategy

Global climate change presents an uncertain, moving target for forest

managers as they try to understand ecosystem attributes and function

over the next forest rotation. This influence cannot be ignored and the

Kamloops Future Forest Strategy (KFFS) is working to create a vision of

future forest conditions in the context of climate change by providing

management direction that satisfies overlapping objectives. Through the

realization of objectives, the Kamloops Future Forest Strategy seeks to:

• Understand the range of potential impacts from climate change

based on well-informed local climate modelling.

• Identify vulnerabilities to forest management expectations and

direction based on the impacts of climate change and other

influences.

• Provide options to modify management direction so that it is better

aligned with the impacts of climate change and other influences.

• Articulate a robust desired future forest condition to promote

general goals for timber and other values so they are not

jeopardized over the long term.

• Identify data gaps and uncertainties.

• Provide a template for managing multiple objectives in a changing

environment.

Thus far, the KFFS has analyzed future ecological vulnerabilities for

12 local biogeoclimatic subzones by mapping their predicted climate

envelopes based on bookend (best/worst case) scenarios from global cir-

culation models up to years 2050 and 2080. Specialists and practitioners

used this information, in the context of current ecosystems, to discuss po-

tential ecological trends. Further discussion will take place at workshops,

to be held in December 2008 and the project will wrap up in March 2009.

PROJECT TEAMForsite: Cam Brown, RPF; Stephen Smyrl

Kamloops Timber Supply Area: Marino Bordin, RPF; Zoran Boskovic, RPF; Michael Bragg, RPF

(chair); Dave Dobi, RPF; Jamie Jeffreys, RPF; Jim McGrath, RPF.

Ministry of Forest & Range Victoria Support Team: Dave Bodak, RPF; Jim Snetsinger, RPF.

Other Consultants: Sally Aitken, PhD; Ken Day, RPF; Laurie Kremsater, RPF, RPBio; Karl Larsen,

PhD; Stephen Mitchell, PhD, RPF; Tongli Wang, PhD.

Shamaya Consulting: Colleen Jones, RPBio

Symmetree Consulting Group Ltd.: Bryce Bancroft, RPBio; Ken Zielke, RPF.

FUNDINGForest Investment Account

CONTACTKen Zielke, RPF, Symmetree Consulting Group Ltd. Ph: 604.921.6077

I


“In contrast to prior BC legislation, the current Forest

and Range Practices Act, S.B.C. 2002, c.69, relies less

on government regulation and more on the judgment

and accountability of forest professionals.”British Columbia Supreme Court Reasons for Judgment, Sunshine Coast Conservation

Association v. Association of British Columbia Forest Professionals, February 12, 2007.

The BC Supreme Court appears to suggest that professional

accountability will play a larger role in the enforcement of forest

practices. If so, this could increase the pressure on the ABCFP

to become more active in the enforcement of professional

ethics. Third parties interested in forest practices may begin to

force the issue of professional ethics through judicial review.

This practice was used recently in the above-referenced

decision (SCCA II) and an earlier decision from the same

litigation (SCCA I). These decisions concerned the work of an

RPF on a forest development plan. Initially, an interested third

party filed a complaint under the Foresters Act with the registrar

of the ABCFP. The complaint alleged that certain conduct and

practices of the RPF amounted to noncompliance with the Code

of Ethics and practice standards under the ABCFP’s Bylaws.

The registrar determined that the former version of the

Foresters Act applied to the complaint, and exercised his

discretion under the former Act not to accept the complaint.

The third party commenced judicial review of the registrar’s

decision and, in SCCA I, the court found that the current version

of the Foresters Act applied to the complaint, not the former

version. The court therefore set aside the registrar’s decision,

and directed the registrar to reconsider the complaint in

accordance with the applicable provisions of the current Act.

Under section 22(6) of the current Act, the registrar is

required to accept a complaint and proceed to the next stage of

the process if the complaint satisfies each of four conditions:

1. it concerns a member or former member;

2. it includes sufficient information for an investigation to proceed;

3. the allegations, if proven, would involve a breach of the Act,

bylaws or resolutions; and

4. the parties cannot resolve the matter.

The registrar determined that the third condition was not

satisfied and, therefore, rejected the complaint once again. However,

in SCCA II, the court found that registrar had misinterpreted his

jurisdiction. Specifically, the court found that the registrar rejected

the complaint based upon his conclusion that the petitioner could

not prove the allegations. The court held that the registrar was

required to assume that the allegations were proven, and that the

registrar did not have jurisdiction to assess evidence. That was

the job of the complaint review committee at the next stage of the

process. The registrar’s only discretion was to determine whether

the allegations, “if proven,” would amount to a contravention. The

court therefore set aside the registrar’s decision once again and,

once again, ordered the registrar to reconsider the complaint.

Ultimately, a court is unlikely to interfere with the

substantive decision of whether a member contravened the

ABCFP’s Code of Ethics or practice standards. A court will bend

over backwards to leave these substantive decisions with the

experts who the legislature intended would make them.

Nevertheless, the courts are not so reluctant to interfere with

issues of procedure or jurisdiction, and these decisions illustrate

how easily interested third parties can use judicial review to

take some control over the enforcement of professional ethics

and practice. A third party need only file a complaint, and if

the ABCFP makes a decision in respect of the complaint that is

characterized by some procedural or jurisdictional error, the

third party can force the matter into the courts for a remedy.

Of course, there is nothing new with process of judicial review;

what is new is the extent that professional reliance now relied

upon in our legislated forest practices. This could make third

parties who are interested in the enforcement of forest practices

more inclined to use professional ethics as a surrogate. 3

Jeff Waatainen is a past adjunct professor of law at UBC, has practised

law in the forest sector for over a dozen years, and currently works as a sole

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

Third Party Enforcement of Professional Ethics

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

The Legal Perspective


Member News

Lorne Swannell, RPF (Ret) #6, Life Member,

has celebrated his 100th birthday. Lorne

was born September 2, 1908 to Frank and

Ada Mary Swannell. Frank, Lorne’s father

was a BC land surveyor who, for many

years, recorded BC history in photographs.

Lorne attended UBC and completed a

Bachelor of Arts May 1930 and a Bachelor of

Applied Science (Forest Engineering) with

honours May 1931. A few years ago, Lorne,

with registration number 6, became the

oldest living forester in British Columbia.

In April 1936, Lorne became a ranger

at Kamloops and was then promoted to

Assistant District Forester in Prince

George in January 1939. At the start of

WWII, Lorne, who had been part of the

officers in training earlier, was commis-

sioned to the militia, training recruits in

Prince George and then Prince Rupert.

In May 1940, he was transferred overseas

as part of the Royal Canadian Artillery

serving in Great Britain, France, Belgium,

Holland and Germany. When discharged

in August 1945, Lorne had the rank of

Major as Battery Commander of the 2nd

Survey Regiment, Royal Canadian Army.

Rejoining the BC Forest Service as Assistant

District Forester at Prince George, he was

promoted to District Forester May 1947.

In September 1949, Grace Wisenden be-

came Lorne’s bride and life-long companion

until her death December 18, 2004. In April

1952 they were transferred to Kamloops

and six years later to Victoria where Lorne

became Assistant Chief Forester. In 1965,

Lorne became Chief Forester for BC.

Upon Lorne’s retirement in 1972, Grace

and Lorne had more time to enjoy their

varied interests: exercising, historical

travelling, reading, nature, square dancing,

symphony, opera, ballet and entertain-

ing. During this time, Lorne continued

his life as both as a teacher at Camosun

College and a student at the University

of Victoria and the Open University.

At 100, Lorne still lives in his own

home with his devoted caregivers and

continues his outings to the symphony,

opera, ballet, and charity events.

In MemoriamIt 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. The association sends condolences

to the family and friends of the following members.

Tyler James O’FarrellABCFP ForesTrust Recipient 2007

1980 – 2008

It is with sadness in our hearts that we

announce the passing of our friend, classmate

and colleague Tyler James O’Farrell. He died

August 24th at the age of 28 after a fall at work

in Frederick Arm, northeast of Campbell River.

Tyler possessed all of the qualities that

make an excellent forester – an enquiring

mind, a love of the outdoors, a sense of

responsibility to the land and respect

for all people. These traits stood him in

good stead for the promising career he

had just begun as an Assistant Engineer

with Interfor in Campbell River, where he

planned to pursue his RPF designation.

His career choice was not a surprising one;

Tyler’s love of the outdoors reached into his

early childhood. Several years as an arborist

in Kelowna matched his lifelong love of trees,

but he soon decided that a career in the forest

was his calling. He enrolled in UBC forestry

program in 2004, where he was well known

for his ball hockey prowess, award-winning

‘Wild Game & Whiskey’ chili, his unwavering

kindness and his beaming smile. Tyler was

the recipient of an ABCFP scholarship in

2007 and graduated with honours (and

debt-free!) from the BSF Forest Resources

Management program in May of 2008.

Anyone who crossed paths with this

kind, bright young man will remember him

with a smile on his face, ready to laugh. He

was caring and compassionate towards

everyone and always had time to listen. His

untimely death is a heavy blow and he will

be greatly missed by all who knew him.

Efforts are underway to commemorate

Tyler’s generosity and achievements

through the endowment of a UBC Forestry

scholarship in his name. If you would

like to make a contribution, please visit

www.supporting.ubc.ca/givingoptions/

donatenow and designate your gift to the

Tyler O’Farrell Fund – Faculty of Forestry.

Submitted by friends and colleagues of

Tyler O'Farrell.

Lorne Swannell (left), with Vernon Wellburn, RPF (ret) #222 at his 100th birthday party.

Forest Professional Centenarian


If you were a student in the Faculty of

Forestry at UBC between 1965 and 1983,

then you will certainly recognize the

name, Dr. Joseph Gardner. Dean of the

faculty for nearly twenty years, Dr. Gardner

affected great change in forestry educa-

tion not just in BC, but across Canada.

Not a trained forester, but a scientist with

knowledge in pulp and paper, Dr. Gardner

seemed an unlikely choice as Dean of the

Faculty of Forestry to many of his colleagues.

But this unlikely candidate had a great vision

for the school. He broadened the scope of

classes offered to include topics such as con-

servation, wildlife management, and ecology,

and brought in specialists and experts from

throughout the fi eld. He encouraged a strong

graduate program, insisting that his instruc-

tors would include only the top researchers,

and encouraged international recruitment

to attract the best available talent. As well,

Dr. Gardner inaugurated programming that

proactively encouraged and recruited women

to enroll in forestry, foresight that has led to a

female student population of over 40% in 2008.

Dr. Gardner has been recognized in a

number of ways for his dedication to changing

the face of forestry education, including the

Order of Canada, the Queen’s Golden Jubilee

Medal and honorary member status by the

ABCFP. He also received the gratifi cation of

knowing the program he created was imitated

by forestry schools across Canada. And now,

the UBC Faculty of Forestry wishes to recog-

nize Dr. Gardner by establishing the Joseph

and Joyce Gardner Scholarship in Forestry.

Once endowed, this scholarship will

assist undergraduate students in the Faculty

of Forestry on an annual basis, ensuring the

recipients are recognized for their academic

achievement. Dr. Gardner himself recalls

how receiving a scholarship from UBC

when he was a student helped him succeed,

and has thus been a longtime fi nancial

supporter of the university. As a university

graduate yourself, you may also have been

the benefi ciary of fi nancial support and can

thus appreciate the difference it made.

UBC’s Faculty of Forestry Raising $20,000 for the Joseph and Joyce Gardner Scholarship in Forestry

Book Review

Taking the Air:Ideas and Changein Canada’s National Parksxiv & 230

Kopas, Paul

UBC Press 2007

ISBN: 978-0-7748-1329-7 (bound)

ISBN: 978 -0-7748-1330-3 (pbk)

This well-written account of the origins

and administration of our national parks

begins with a challenging assertion that

“national parks are about meaning” and goes

on to analyse what this meaning might be.

The analysis leads to discussion of the

purpose of parks; shows that tensions

between preservation and conservation or

wise non-consumptive uses, which began

with the ‘war’ between Gifford Pinchot

and John Muir, persist to this day, with the

balance now tipping towards preservation.

It also raises the question of who should pay

for parks, only users or the public at large.

The author confi nes himself to organization

and administration with some interesting

insights into the machinations of bureaucracy.

The successive chapters set out the chronology

and fl uctuations of parks administration,

beginning with Banff which has something

of an iconic status despite controversies

over its development. He does not address

biological questions such as the role of fi re as an ecological

tool or management of insect infestations which can have

important repercussions beyond park boundaries.

Forest professionals will, I suspect, fi nd most interest in the

chapters detailing the growth and impact of public participation

in management decisions during the 1970s and 1980s. Who are most infl uential;

how do they become involved; and what role should Aboriginal peoples play? These

questions, important in parks, apply also to lands outside the park boundaries.

Reviewed by Roy Strang, PhD, RPF(Ret}

This well-written account of the origins

“national parks are about meaning” and goes

insights into the machinations of bureaucracy.

The successive chapters set out the chronology

Ranking: 4 out of 5 cones

The faculty’s goal is to raise $20,000, which

will ensure that this scholarship is endowed

and awarded in perpetuity. If you are inter-

ested in helping create a legacy for Dr. Gardner

and supporting a future generation of forestry

students, please contact Jenna McCann in the

UBC Faculty of Forestry at 604.822.8787 or jen-

[email protected]. Alternatively, visit www.

supporting.ubc.ca and click on Donate Now.

On behalf of the UBC Faculty of Forestry

and Dr. Gardner, thank you for your support!

SOLUTION

MelocheMonnex.com

1 866 269 1371

GROUP HOME INSURANCE

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

PROGRAM CLUSTERS

Forest Resources Dynamics

Ecosystem Management &Conservation Biology

Watershed Management

Aboriginal Forestry

Socio-economics

INFORMATION PRODUCTS & SERVICES

NRIN - Natural Resources Information Network

BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management

LINK Newsletter

Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin

FORREX Series

Proud to deliver the Provincial Forest Extension Programin partnership with the FIA Forest Science Program

www.forrex.org

FORREX envisions a society of continuous learners making decisions supporting

sustainable ecosystems and communities.

Forum for Research and Extensionin Natural Resources

for members of the Association of B.C.

Forest Professionals

member benefit

since 1985

Remuneration is commensurate with qualifications and experience. We also offer comprehensive benefits. Timberline is 100% employee-owned. Our

organization has exciting career development opportunities and supports professional association membership and individual professional development.

All candidates must be eligible to work in Canada. We thank all applicants for their interest. Only those selected for further consideration will be contacted.


Professional Listings

FOREST Club

Business Savings, Entertainment, Travel and more!

PARTICIPATING MERCHANTS:

Sign up today at abcfp.intrd.com

WHISTLER BLACKCOMB BC SKIING POWER WITHIN

SAVE 15%

SAVE up to 25%

SAVE on TICKETS

World class resort with over 8,000 acres of skiable terrain

VANCOUVER DATES:Anthony Robbins , Oct 17-20Vernon

KamloopsKelowna

FOR THE 2008/09 SEASON

SAVE ON LIFT TICKETSAvailable to purchase Oct 1 – Nov 16Tickets mailed to you the last week of November 2008.

Bill Clinton, Oct 17

The Power of Women, Nov 6

AvisBC LionsBell MobilityBig White Mountain ResortsBoss ToolsBudgetCarter Auto GroupClarion HotelsClearly Contacts

Coast Hotels & ResortsComfort Inn & SuitesCrossgrove & Company InsuranceCruise PlusDelta Hotel & SuitesDiamond.comEagle Tours Golf & Snow SportsEcono Lodge Inn & SuitesIce Jewelry and Gifts

ICN (International Club Network)National Car RentalsNEBS PrintingPark n' FlyPlaylandPNEPower Within Speaker SeriesPromo People Quality Inn

Rodeway Inn & SuitesSilver Star Mountain ResortSleep InnSun Peaks ResortVancouver OperaVancouver WhitecapsWa-2! WaterWebnames.caWhistler/Blackcomb

Brought to you by the Association of BC Forest Professionals, FOREST Club gives you exclusive access to discounts on your favorite products and services. To sign-up and save, go to: abcfp.intrd.com

Documents

BCForest - University of Northern British Columbiaunbc.ca/sites/default/files/assets/annie_booth/bcforpro_2008_6.pdf · By Brian Robinson, RPF 15 Biology, Forestry and Ethics: Professionals