@prefix ns0: . @prefix edm: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix dc: . @prefix skos: . ns0:identifierAIP "c855a746-20e5-46f6-ba82-ad7d0a4c2d8e"@en ; edm:dataProvider "CONTENTdm"@en ; dcterms:isPartOf "Westland"@en ; dcterms:issued "2012-07-20"@en, "1984"@en ; dcterms:description "Fifteen spokespeople from the forest and fisheries sector discuss the decades long debate about fish habitat. It is noteworthy that many of the principles had never met until Westland brought them together for this forum. Despite the opposite thrust of their special interests there is tacit agreement that integrated resource management and not media sensationalism or protest is the key to getting sustained yield from both resources."@en, ""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://oc-uat.library.ubc.ca/collections/westland/items/1.0048233/source.json"@en ; dcterms:extent "1 U-matic videocassette ; 00:59:30"@en ; dc:format "video/mp4"@en ; skos:note """(OPENING MUSIC) MIKE HALLERAN: The BC Wildlife Federation, in cooperation with the communications branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, presents Westland, a series of programs discussing natural resources conservation and land use in British Columbia. Good evening, I’m Mike Halleran. Tonight on Westland, we depart from our customary format and bring you an hour-long forum discussion, that is almost the first of its kind. On this program series, we have tried to suggest that the climate between resource neighbours is not really as confrontational as the media would have us believe. Oh there is still lots of conflict out there, and that is likely to continue forever since the demands for all resources are rising and the land base from which we strive to supply them grows no more. But the truth is that some people are striving hard to reduce conflicts between resource or land use interests, and real progress is being made. Skeptics abound, however, and hence this Westland special. We invited nearly 20 guests from the fishing and forestry communities - centre of our most bitter debates - to take part in our Westland forum. We had these people in our studio for a long taping session, edited down to one hour program time. I think you’ll find the results interesting. BILL YOUNG: A very few years ago, Mike, the forest resource of British Columbia was looked on as inexhaustible. There was always more, out there, in the next valley. You and I know that that wasn’t true. The fact is that the forest land base and the forest is… it’s a finite resource. Now couple that finite resource with the demand and the demand for all the products of the forest - be it the demand on the land base of the forest, or for the products such as timber, range, grazing opportunities for the livestock industry in the interior, forest recreation, wildlife habitat and so forth - the demand is increasing at a exceptional degree. And so much, of course, that there… the forest land base and the forests of British Columbia, they just cannot satisfy the total of the demand being put on it. MIKE HALLERAN: Could I get a similar sort of version of what’s happening to the demand in the case of… we’ll say the salmon resource from Wayne Shinners. WAYNE SHINNERS: Well, there’s no question that the demand on the salmon resource has been increasing substantially, particularly in the last… over the last ten years, whether we’re talking about the commercial fishermen, and their ability to catch fish - certainly the technology… technological improvements that have taken place there are substantial, and we have a fleet that’s far in excess of the ability of the resource to respond or provide fish. But we also have a growing sports fishery, and in 1983, we sold something like 400,000 licenses to sport fishermen, and that client group is growing at a substantial rate. And no doubt in a few years, there’ll be 0.5 million here in BC who want to participate in sport fishery. In addition to that demand, we try and deal with the native needs, whether they be food needs or involvement of natives in the commercial fishery, and that demand is growing, not only through pressures in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but through land claims, constitutional, Aboriginal rights and so forth that impose an additional burden on the department and on the resource to provide those… those fish. So the resource base is, indeed, decreasing, going one way, and the user demands are going in the other direction. JIM WALKER: There’s also an increased demand for water-based recreation related to fishing. In the interior, for example, our sales, all across the province, for non-tidal fishing, certainly, go up every year, the catch-per-unit effort has been going down. So we have, certainly, the demand out there for recreational fishing, and probably a demand that we’re increasingly not gonna be able to supply adequately because for various factors. But there is an increase in demand for recreational fishing, not associated with salmon, as well. DON CHARLTON: If we think back ten years, where the buzz word was growth. The growth ethic. And, as with a lot of human undertakings, we went into a period of… massive encouragement of growth within industry right across the board. And the pendulum swung - in the allocation process of these… allocating the resources - it swung possibly too far, where, in fact, there was a… an overcommitment within the resources. Understanding that, I think we can sympathize with not only the industries involved - forestry and fisheries - but with the resource managers, that as the demands exceeded the supply, the conflicts that arose led the resource managers, in fact, into managing the conflict between the users as opposed to spending the majority of their effort in actually managing the resources. JIM WALKER: One of the big items in British Columbia is tourism, and everyone’s heard the projection that, in the future, probably, an awful lot of the economy will be based on tourism. A lot of the people who come here, come here for recreational fishing, and with current restraint measures, with some of the habitat damage we’ve had, I would assume, probably, that in the future probably we may not be able to meet that demand, and there is a real problem with supplying enough recreational fishing and angling experience for people who want to in the future. We’re… we are gonna have a problem. JACK NICHOL: There are some that say, and particularly Mr. Shinners, who claims that the decline is the result of overfishing, and I think it’s simplistic to suggest that there is more capacity and greater technology now than there was before and that’s responsible for the decline, because to match the increase or the improvement in technology, of course, we’ve seen a decline in the fishing days for the commercial sector, from three, four days, down to either no days or one day per week. That’s been the practice in more recent years. We talk about 65 million… or 65,000, rather, metric tons of salmon produced now, compared with the much larger figure some years ago. And we talk about 1984, and it’ll produce some 35,000 metric tons, but here again, that’s not really examining the issue. In 1983, for example, we produced about 65,000 metric tons of salmon, but most of that was pink salmon, which provides the least return to the commercial fishermen, and there was a lack of red salmon, as there will be again in 1984, and probably in 1985 as well. And it’s that red salmon that produces that return. Or… the difficulty is, it seems to me, in simply pointing the finger at the commercial fishermen and saying it’s all the… it’s all a matter of overfishing and then trying to correct that situation, or to arrest the decline and start to rebuild salmon stocks, if in fact, salmon habitat is beyond the capability of increasing salmon… salmon runs. MIKE HALLERAN: What would you like to say in response to the suggestion that Mr. Charlton made for instance, that the climate may be right now for an improved series of relations between the fisheries and forestry interests. How would you respond to that as a premise? JACK NICHOL: Well I would say this, that I think it would be very, very welcome, and something that our organization has advocated for a long time, because we see that in the habitat, it’s more than just salmon, the living resource, but also forest, the living resource. And, you know, we’ve got to regenerate forest just as we have to protect and rebuild our salmon stocks. And as a trade union, it’s… naturally, I’m concerned about the jobs that are gonna be provided. Not simply now, but jobs well into the future. And I think unless the users of habitat can get together and work out some common approach to a multi-use concept, then, in the future we’re gonna be in some difficulty. BRUCE DEVITT: I think as a group of people, we’ve just totally underestimate the overall potential of our resource for management. We’ve just… basically, we’ve been harvesting… It’s like having a bank account where you keep writing cheques without doing a reconciliation, and we’ve been harvesting both resources without really getting into looking at managing them properly. And I can’t speak for fisheries, ‘cause I’m in forestry, but I know that the potential of our forest land base has been totally underestimated. And given our current level of technology, we could be growing twice as much wood as we are now. That… it’s a cost involved there, but the benefits are also there, so I think the benefits far outweigh the costs of management. And probably the same thing would hold true in fisheries. That’s given our current level of knowledge, and in terms of looking down the road into the future and looking at the knowledge that we don’t have yet and the knowledge that we do have, and trying to get together the amount of money that might be needed to further that knowledge, I wouldn’t want to bet in forestry that we could even grow four times as much. Now that would free up land for other uses, because then we could concentrate our wood growing on those lands best suitable, most economic and so on, for growing wood, and that would free up… So I think as a group of people, we have to look, as Don says, towards managing it, rather than looking at managing conflicts. MIKE HALLERAN: Okay, you’re suggesting, I think, that there’s a potential to make the forest and fisheries resources respond to greater levels of management, intensive management. You’re saying that we will get out something in proportion to the amount we’re putting back in. Is that too simple, or is that about what you mean? BRUCE DEVITT: No, that’s what I mean. We’ll get more than… back. MIKE HALLERAN: You’re suggesting that intensive management, in your field at least, in forestry, that intensive management actually pays a return, that it’s worth doing. BRUCE DEVITT: That’s right. And along the way it provides jobs for people, and research, and developing and managing today, and it provides jobs down the road. And we just totally are ignoring that. MIKE HALLERAN: Do you accept the premise… any of you, that there has been a tendency on the part of the citizen to take these two great resources for granted, because after all they were here when we came. Is there something traditional in our approach to them that we have to try and overcome? HOWARD PAISH: Yes, I think so Mike, I think, one of our big problems is that we’ve lived… we’ve talked a lot about a “myth of abundance.” Kennedy coined that phrase, and we’ve referred to it today already. But also, I think, a myth that we have to address more and more is this problem of common property ownership, being coupled with common property right-to-use, almost, whereas, whenever you want to. And I think one of our big problems is being… is that we’ve just allowed too many people to think the resource could go on forever, and it was their right to use it, rather than a privilege that’s been bestowed upon - whether it’s a logging company, a sport fisherman, or a commercial fisherman - a privilege that’s been bestowed upon that particular person or ind… or company by the society that owns the resource. Now, I think this is what we’re losing touch with, and I think a lot of your viewers should be interested in. We’re a group of users here. I think we’re not worrying enough about the resource owners, who also expect a return from that resource. And I think both the forest industry and the fishing industry, and sport fishers as well, have to show a much better sense of responsibility to the resource owners. JACK WALTERS: I believe it completely possible if the Ministry of Forests was adequately funded, and the government committed itself to a long-term wood production program, that we could produce 90 million cubic metres, which is a name that we had in the five-year program, on about a quarter of the land base. I think we could do that more profitably than we can managing extensively as we are today. MIKE HALLERAN: Help us though, by understanding what that figure would mean in comparison to what we’re producing today. JACK WALTERS: Well, I think the allowable annual cut now is down from 75 million cubic metres, two or three years ago, to about 68 million cubic metres. I suspect it will drop further, as we reach levels of economic inaccessibility, especially on the coast in the southern interior, and that is necessarily going to mean that, in view of the fact that the industry is so important to the economy of our province, that we’ll have a declining economy, a declining labour force, a declining labour force in related industries to the forest industry, the service industries and so on. I think that’s inevitable if we proceed as we are and the ministry, I think, is unfortunately in the position where it must manage extensively because it doesn’t have adequate funding. They’re not committed, nor the amount’s not sufficient to do the job properly. And if we were managing intensively, as I say, we could manage… We could get a much greater yield than we’re presently getting, more profitably - and that’s the name of the game really - on a much reduced land base. BILL YOUNG: I don’t think we should let our audience believe that by investments and getting integrated programs of enhancement, that we are alone going to increase the levels of the fisheries and forestry resource. There are great conflicts in the province. There are proposals for parks, and wilderness, and agricultural leases, and urban expansion that affects both resources. I’m not saying that’s wrong, I… British Columbia would be an awful lot poorer province to live in if it wasn’t for a park and a wilderness program. But those erosions into the resource land base that ultimately will affect us both… makes erosions into habitat. We have estimated that over 2 million hectares in the 20 year period up until the year 2000 will be deleted from the resource land base of the province. For other uses that don’t provide for production forestry and production fisheries, that is urban… urban expansion, roads, transmission corridors, hydro developments, agricultural programs and so forth. This may not be directly as great an impact on fisheries, but it certainly is on forests. HOWARD PAISH: I’ve done work on some of the most remote northern rivers, Yukon rivers, Stikine river and places like that. And the same kind of problems pop up there, as pop up - in relation to stock strengths - as pop up on rivers like the Fraser. And there’s virtually no industrial development in the Stikine or the Yukon. There as pristine as they were when the white man first got there. Yet we have the same kind of stock reduction problems, so I think we’ve got a lot of catching up to do in the fishing… in the fishing… in the fishery business, and I think the same is true too for a lot of our freshwater stocks too, that we have quite literally been… we have quite literally been overusing and we’re silly if we turn our back on that problem. They are too separate problems. I don’t think they have to be necessarily linked. But I use the word “cop out” advisedly, and I was very much apart of it in my citizen activist days, quite a few years ago. All our convention themes, if you recall, were “Habitat is the key!” “Habitat is the issue!” What do we do at our banquet? We sat down and ate banquets out of steelhead trout. They are now almost an endangered species. MIKE HALLERAN: Is there… I wonder if what you’re saying is that some people have tried to make this question too simple. I see Jim… JIM WALKER: Yeah, I really despair of this whole issue of, “Is the big problem habitat loss or is the big problem overfishing?” And the way I like to explain it is by the use of an analogy. A hundred years ago on the American plains, the buffalo herds were decimated by commercial hide hunting. If there had been a Pearse Commission then, someone would have come along and said, “What you have to do is reduce the gear.” They would have bought… if they had’ve done that, they had’ve got rid of all the Sharpe’s rifles and all the skinners, they would have bought those buffalo, at the very most, two more a decades. Because what was happening all the time was the conversion of the American plains to intensive agriculture. And I think that we really have to when I hear people talk about habitat or overfishing, there shouldn’t be a period after the sentence, there should a comma. I think the biggest problem in the early 1980s is overfishing. I think the biggest longterm problem is habitat, and if we don’t address that similarly with overfishing, then we might find that down the road, it’s gonna be an even bigger problem than overfishing. But you can’t separate the two. There’s a short problem of overfishing operated against a long, gradual backdrop of habitat degradation. DON CHARLTON: I think that the majority of the people sitting in this room are at the stage now where we are looking for, you know, a reasonable, workable compromise. And I think some of the work we’re doing, for example, in Carnation Creek, is giving us the technology and the understanding of the resource interactions that can provide us opportunities to optimize these various resource uses. MIKE HALLERAN: Many commentators on both sides of the fisheries and forestry question have described the difficulties as more social than scientific. But at the same time there is also a clear need for ongoing research into both fields. Much to the surprise of many more reactionary elements in both camps, the longest running fish-forestry study on the west coast, is providing very useful hard data, but also has done a lot for improving relations between the fisheries and forestry communities themselves. What is even more surprising is that the data uncovered at Carnation Creek suggests very strongly that logging coastal fish habitats may not be as environmentally harmful as long believed. MIKE HALLERAN: Carnation Creek is a small stream located on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The stream supports small populations of Cutthroat trout, Steelhead trout, Chum salmon, and Coho salmon. While distinct biological features exist in every small stream, Carnation Creek does possess characteristics which make it similar in nature to hundreds of other such streams, along the BC coast. Carnation Creek is not a massive producer of salmon or Steelhead. Such streams lack the dimensions to produce large numbers of fish. But collectively, the array of coastal streams makes up a vital component of the pacific salmon resource. Since 1970, Carnation Creek has been the centre of a unique study program. The project has been monitoring the effects of logging on fish habitat. The watershed was unlogged when the study project began. It was studied for five years prior to logging, and in this way, valuable baseline data were assembled. Now, after the logging is completed, the effects of that activity can be compared with the natural circumstance. GORDON HARTMAN: We have not set out, and it is not an objective of this study to show that logging is good, or to show that it’s bad. The… the objectives of this logging route… or this project are really quite different. We’re concerned first off with simply understanding how the ecological systems in a little watershed like this Carnation Creek watershed act, as it were. And the second thing that we’re concerned with, once we’ve developed an understanding of processes within this kind of system, is how the logging activities themselves impact on these processes. And I guess the third thing that is important and that we want to be able to do is to take the kind of information that this research project develops and give that information to the forest managers and to fisheries managers so they can make better decisions. They can make better informed decisions, and they will know slightly more about the systems that they’re dealing with when they make those decisions. JACK DRYBERG: We found that the resource conflicts stem from the fact that where the values are high for fisheries, they’re also usually high for forestry. Our best timber grows in the valley bottoms along the streams, and as well, that’s where the fish are. That’s a logical thing. That’s where the conflicts will come. But in this particular project, we’ve been working hand in hand with federal fisheries personnel, and our logging people, and our forestry people. And we’ve come along to the point where we’ve been understanding a little bit more of each other’s particular resource and some of the factors that they’re looking at. We’re looking at some of the things where… things that we can do in particular to help them, and they’re looking at some of the practical things that they can do to assist us as well. So it’s been a very very cooperative venture, and I would definitely like to see this carried on throughout the rest of the coast. (CHAINSAW BUZZING) MIKE HALLERAN: The removal of large volumes of wood, from any forested setting, is a pretty aggressive exercise. It is not easy to go about it gently. In fact, it is virtually impossible to perform a modern logging operation, without causing some damage to soils, and the general forest environment. The removal of trees in a clear-cut logging pattern, such as is occurring here naturally creates massive aesthetic changes. But there are also other impacts, which, though more subtle, are certain to cause alteration to the aquatic environment on which the salmon and trout depend. To further determine the effects of the logging on fry, or juvenile fish, researchers have systematically studied the growth rates of these fish at various stages of the project’s life. A small beach net is usually used to capture the young trout or salmon. They are taken from the net and placed in a tranquilizer solution. After the tranquilizer has taken effect, they are measured, identified as to species and age, and a scale sample taken. Some of the results were quite surprising. GORDON HARTMAN: Fish going into their first autumn are larger since logging because of the increased warmth of our water temperature, because of the increased insect production and nutrient loading in the stream, so that the fish size has actually increased. Indeed, a second thing that’s happened is that the numbers of Coho smolts coming out of the system has increased since logging. I would add that the number of Cutthroat and Steelhead smolt is down, but the number of Coho smolts has increased almost to double the pre-logging level. I think that it’s important though to stress that that has happened really for two reasons. There have been these changes that I’ve referred to, which we are… we’re seeing the fish enter the winter in better size and in better condition, but it happens also that we’ve had four particularly mild winters since the main logging activity began on the watershed, and both of these things probably work together to enhance the survival of Coho through the winter. MIKE HALLERAN: It was also found that gravel movement and stream bank erosion increased dramatically in those parts of the drainage in which timber was logged right to the stream bank, and in some cases, across the stream itself. In fact, changes in the stream bed in those sections of the creek are still taking place. So while summer conditions for young Coho salmon have been enhanced by the logging, the response in winter has not been so encouraging. The incubation success of eggs laid in the gravel has declined, apparently because of the accumulation of large quantities of sand in the river bed. The particles of sand fill the small spaces in the gravel, thereby reducing the flow of oxygen to the eggs and preventing the hatching fish from being able to free themselves from the stream bed. On those sections of the stream in which some trees and other vegetation were left along the creekside, stream conditions are much more stable. Undisturbed, large forest debris is providing vital habitat for young salmon who seem to utilize these sections of the stream as shelter habitat during the turbulent periods of the freshet. JACK DRYBERG: Many people thought that big debris in the stream was bad, small debris not quite so bad. We found quite the opposite… in actual fact, big debris can be valuable in creating fish habitat in the stream, creating pools and riffles - a sequence which is valuable for fish. And also, small debris - that was found to be the most damaging ‘cause it was carried by debris… or by water torrents and scoured the stream banks and caused siltation and various other things of that nature. MIKE HALLERAN: There are some whose aesthetic sensitivities might be offended by the sight of this logged over valley. The slash burned remains that mark the passing of a modern logging operation are offensive to some. But the claims that logging operations are always ugly and destructive are based more on human value judgements than ecological reality. We have been persuaded to believe that logging is ugly, particularly in the aftermath. In fact, a new forest is already rising here, to be logged again in its turn. This valley has been logged, but it is not lifeless. It has been changed, but it has not been destroyed. When one looks at it more closely, one can see that it is already beginning to heal. A few years can make a great difference in the appearance of a replanted forest. A typical young Douglas fir, sampled from the drainage adjacent to Carnation Creek, was found to have obtained a diameter of 6-inches and a height of 16-feet in only ten years. MIKE HALLERAN: There have been some classic, near-violent confrontations over logging damage to fish habitat. The most infamous example in recent times took place in Rennell Sound on the Queen Charlotte Islands, at a place called Riley Creek. The controversy peaked when the fishery officers from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans charged several loggers under habitat sections of the Fisheries Act. Those were some of the human impacts, but the effects on the ground were more lasting. The clear-cutting of steep slopes in the rain belt of Rennell Sound eventually triggered landslides, which caused the loss of much topsoil, a negative event for forestry, and saw much silt enter Riley Creek, a negative event for fish. In a Ministry of Forests film, the event was described like this… (HELICOPTER SOUNDS) MIKE HALLERAN: In the early part of 1979, federal fisheries officers arrested several loggers on the steep slopes of Riley Creek, after the loggers refused to obey orders to halt the logging operation. Fisheries had previously approved the logging plan for Riley Creek, but after the logging had begun, fears were expressed that removing the trees would cause the topsoil to slide. As the conflict developed, the operation was halted. Charges were laid, then dropped. Tempers flared. Those were the human consequences. The effect on the land was more lasting. Tons of soil and debris slid off the side hill of Riley Creek in the fall rainy season of 1979. There are no winners in this kind of conflict. The soil loss is a negative factor to forestry, because it is needed to grow another crop of trees. But if some of that soil finds its way to Riley Creek, it’ll become an obstacle to salmon production. In the aftermath, environmentally sensitive sites are being given special treatment. We learn by doing. This is the way to do it wrong. (HELICOPTER SOUNDS) MIKE HALLERAN: Since the Riley Creek controversy, the climate between fisheries and forestry has improved considerably. A joint fish-forestry study group is working to gather information on steep slope logging in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Many problems remain, but already there is recognition that logging plans must be more site-specific in nature, and that some places may be too sensitive to log at all. The Riley Creek debate, like many such things, turned out to be the thing that began to move fisheries and forestry factions away from the confrontational process and into a joint search for real answers. MIKE BROWNLEE: In order to achieve the annual cut that Bill Young and others have pointed out here today, there is about 400,000 acres a year cut in this province, or about 162,000 hectares. If we think that… or consider that in British Columbia, there are approximately 2,500 recorded salmon streams, and we look at a reduction in agency staff, difficulties in agency staff in trying to solve a myriad of other problems, then the task that they have before them is insurmountable. And we’ve had to rely very heavily on the cooperation that’s evolved over the years between the Ministry of Forests and the Department of Fisheries and provincial Fish and Wildlife Branch. MIKE HALLERAN: You’ve got… the ability to draw upon quite a number of years of contact with fisheries and forestry people. What do you think is happening, in your own experience, to the climate that exists between these two interests reflected here? MIKE BROWNLEE: Well, I would… to answer that, I would say there’s been a dramatic improvement. When we first looked very seriously at some of the problems, commenced Carnation Creek, looked at studies in Prince George. When Mr. Young was in Prince George, we looked at the Slim Creek study. We now are undertaking studies on the Queen Charlotte Islands. We’re looking to try to provide some answers to give us some tools in which to reduce some of the… some of the impacts associated with forestry operations on fish habitat. In addition to coming up with improved guidance, there’s also a dramatic improvement, I believe, in cooperation between the people that are doing business, between people that have “forester” stamped on their forehead, or “logger” stamped on one ear. Or… MIKE HALLERAN: What about, though… it’s only five years, Mike, since Riley Creek, since charges were laid against individual loggers, and the headlines of the papers were filled for days with an endless array of charges and counter-charges and so on? Have we really gone that far? Has the situation… Mr. Shinners? WAYNE SHINNERS: I think we have gone… we’ve come quite a ways since Riley Creek. Certainly Riley Creek didn’t… the conclusion of Riley Creek was not to the satisfaction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and to the fish in that particular creek. But as a result of that, as a result of that high profile, I think there was an effort made by both parties to get their acts together, to try and deal with some of these problems before they… before they happened again because nobody… nobody, whether it’s a forester or a fisheries officer or a fisheries manager, is interested in that type of situation. It is not satisfactory to either party or to either resource. But coming out of it, I think a lot of good things have happened in the last… what, four years since Riley Creek? Five years, almost, since Riley Creek. Sure, there’s been a lot of dialogue, and a lot of things that would’ve happened prior to Riley Creek have not happened, whether it be from fisheries point of view or forestry point of view, as a result of that, because everybody is super sensitive. TOM CHAMBERLIN: When Carnation Creek started, and even more recently, the Riley Creek sort-of episodes, which triggered research as a reactive action, used to be the way we got information. Nowadays, what I see is, somewhat more of a commitment, although as yet, it’s difficult to implement it, between the senior managers and the various sectors to getting that information in place, before we make the mistakes, and before we have to make a decision on the basis of an apparent lack of resource. In the immediate time frame, even the province and the federal Department of Fisheries are beginning to cooperate on gathering information jointly, where it serves both of their management interests. Ten years ago, this would have been unheard of. MIKE HALLERAN: Who would like to make a statement of some kind about media handling of resource questions? HOWARD PAISH: Yes, I would Mike. I… You know, I think… I think the real problem here is that bad news sells fairly well - the confrontation, the conflict and so on. The Riley Creeks, the conflict issues. When I recall 15, 20 years ago, the Stellako River issue, things like that. They’re the ones that make news headlines. They’re the ones that reporters start calling you about if you’re involved. The fact that Mike Brownlee and Bill Young have been talking very cordially and doing very constructive things over the past ten or so years, the fact that a lot of these """@en, "Season 01 Episode 15
Mike Halleran; Bill Young - Chief Forester, Ministry of Forests; Wayne Shinners - Director General Pacific Region Department of Fisheries & Oceans; Jim Walker - Ministry of Environment Fish and Wildlife Branch; Don Charlton - British Columbia Wildlife Federation; Jack Nichol - United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union; Bruce Devitt - Pacific Forest Products Ltd.; Howard Paish - Resource Consultant; Jack Walters - Univerity of British Columbia Research Forest; Gordon Hartman - Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans (Canada); Jack Dryberg - MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.; Mike Bownlee - Department of Fisheries & Oceans; Tom Chamberlin - Ministry of Environment; Bill Moore - Logging Contractor; Ed Vernon - Association of Professional Biologists; Garnet Jones - Fisheries Association of B.C."@en ; edm:hasType "Motion Pictures"@en ; dcterms:spatial "Carnation Creek (B.C.)"@en ; dcterms:identifier "UBC VT 2160.1/015"@en, "Westland_01_15"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0048233"@en ; dcterms:language "English"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:rights "Images provided for research and reference use only. Permission to publish, copy or otherwise use these images must be obtained from University Archives: http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives"@en ; dcterms:source "Original Format: University of British Columbia. Archives. Halleran Video Collection. UBC VT 2160.1/015"@en ; dcterms:title "Fish Forest Forum"@en ; dcterms:type "Moving Image"@en .