Logging planned above Squaw/ Olson creek
Re: Logging planned above Squaw/ Olson creek
This link will take you to the Chinook Business Area Map for BC Timber Sales
The area of interest is SW144 that will extend almost to the top of the Squaw/Slahany buttress if it remains in it's present shape. This would impact the trail network and add additional roads.
I know nothing about the area marked on the map as MA109.
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/c98 ... ef9ac4482c
The area of interest is SW144 that will extend almost to the top of the Squaw/Slahany buttress if it remains in it's present shape. This would impact the trail network and add additional roads.
I know nothing about the area marked on the map as MA109.
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/c98 ... ef9ac4482c
-
squamish climber
- Site Admin
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
- Location: Bowen Island
Re: Logging planned above Squaw/ Olson creek
I have emailed and voiced my opposition as well and urge everyone else to do the same before July 22 when SAS and CASBC meet with forest officials.
Dave Jones - site admin
When you reach the top, keep climbing -- Zen proverb
When you reach the top, keep climbing -- Zen proverb
-
Anders Ourom
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
Re: Logging planned above Squaw/ Olson creek
There may be other aspects to this question that should be considered. It may be in the best interests of Squamish, climbers, and the Park, that logging resume in both upper Olesen Creek and, when the time comes, in upper Shannon Creek. Perhaps limited logging, using the best modern techniques and with a high level of consultation and planning, but nonetheless logging. AFAIK, both areas remain in the working forest, and as such are important to the economy of B.C. and of Squamish. Climbers shouldn’t simply rule out the possibility of resumed logging there. Also, upper Olesen can’t be considered in isolation – whatever happens there is the precedent for upper Shannon.
Upper Olesen was logged in the 1950s and 1960s, into what is now Stawamus Chief Provincial Park. There was a fire lookout on Slhanay, and are still old cables along the trail to the north summit of the Chief. The last logging in Olesen Creek was in late 1991, when an area across from the Chief, below the bluffs, was heli-logged, supposedly to remove “dead and down” timber. That scandal was the proximate cause of the Chief being added for study under the Protected Areas Strategy in 1992, and being made a park in 1995.
Upper Shannon was logged in stages in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Each time they’d reopen the road, then log a few blocks. The last block was in about 1988, 1 km northwest of Petgill Lake. The road would be driveable for a few years each time, but gradually become rougher, and eventually you’d have to go on foot or mountain bike. In the late 1990s (?) the road was blocked. However, for practical purposes there was then little obstacle to hiking, climbing and mountaineering in the area; it just sometimes took a little effort.
Perhaps there is a bit of old growth left in upper Olesen or upper Shannon. In any case, logging is nothing new in the area, and if it’s time to resume logging in Olesen Creek - now mostly second growth – upper Shannon Creek will soon follow. There seems to be quite a lot more timber there, and that may be the real concern. If logging is stopped in upper Olesen, the argument may then be that that should also apply to upper Shannon– which may not be in the interests of Squamish, climbers, and the Park. It would in effect privatize upper Shannon.
As part of the Access Society, I was a member of the study team that got the Chief and area made into a provincial park in 1995, drafted a management plan, and looked after the park for years. When the park was created, we considered what the boundaries should be, in context of other uses and needs, particularly forestry and mining. (Some of the area outside the park was and may still be subject to mineral claims.) We also considered what might be added to the park, including the upper Malamute, which we couldn’t get added at the time, and the gravel pit, which we thought had been safely added in 2005 so as to protect the park – until we were betrayed.
The boundaries were set so as to be continuous with what became Shannon Falls Provincial Park, rise to the height of land east of the Chief, include Slhanay, and be bounded by the roads to the west. Upper Olesen Creek and upper Shannon were specifically left out of the park, the former due to the road zigzagging through it, the latter because it really isn’t visible from the Chief. In both cases also because they’d been logged, and were in the working forest. It made sense to us – define the area which reasonably needed to be protected, and could be, but don’t ask for more.
I don’t know what the actual value of recreation in upper Olesen is now, as compared to its value for forestry. Likewise the respective values of forestry and recreation in upper Shannon. Whether the recent spurt in recreation will be sustained is also an open question. Many of the routes, cliffs and climbs up there were explored years if not decades ago. It may be a “nine days wonder” situation.
Forestry continues to be important to the economies of Squamish and B.C. Perhaps less so than it was, but still important. Removing upper Olesen and/or upper Shannon from the working forest would have significant economic impacts. A reasonable balance needs to be found, perhaps in allowing “state of the art” logging in those areas, as a showcase as to how forestry, recreation and tourism really can co-exist. Not just standard cut blocks, as may be what is planned, but something really well done. It could even be a display for tourists of what responsible, truly sustainable modern forestry is about. (The promoters of the recent development acknowledged that upper Shannon would in due course be re-logged.)
Climbers have slowly built a positive relationship with Squamish and its people. Our interest is to maintain that, protect the Park, and be open to responsible forestry in upper Olesen and upper Shannon. Knee jerk opposition to long-planned logging seems unwise, and may not help climbers, and the Park. As someone said not long ago, it’s not as though the area is a wilderness, or that no development is visible from the Chief. Perhaps there’s a need to revisit the Park’s boundaries, after nearly 20 years – bearing in mind that it will always be vulnerable to commercial/industrial development and incompetent or corrupt governments. Reopening the boundaries of a Park with values of international significance requires careful thought, particularly bearing in mind the pressures on it.
On a final note, I ask that those contributing to this discussion disclose all business, financial or personal links that you or family members have with the bodies and individuals that are involved or may be affected – conflicts of interest. (I speak only on behalf of myself.) And don’t forget that the government may have already decided what’s going to happen.
Upper Olesen was logged in the 1950s and 1960s, into what is now Stawamus Chief Provincial Park. There was a fire lookout on Slhanay, and are still old cables along the trail to the north summit of the Chief. The last logging in Olesen Creek was in late 1991, when an area across from the Chief, below the bluffs, was heli-logged, supposedly to remove “dead and down” timber. That scandal was the proximate cause of the Chief being added for study under the Protected Areas Strategy in 1992, and being made a park in 1995.
Upper Shannon was logged in stages in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Each time they’d reopen the road, then log a few blocks. The last block was in about 1988, 1 km northwest of Petgill Lake. The road would be driveable for a few years each time, but gradually become rougher, and eventually you’d have to go on foot or mountain bike. In the late 1990s (?) the road was blocked. However, for practical purposes there was then little obstacle to hiking, climbing and mountaineering in the area; it just sometimes took a little effort.
Perhaps there is a bit of old growth left in upper Olesen or upper Shannon. In any case, logging is nothing new in the area, and if it’s time to resume logging in Olesen Creek - now mostly second growth – upper Shannon Creek will soon follow. There seems to be quite a lot more timber there, and that may be the real concern. If logging is stopped in upper Olesen, the argument may then be that that should also apply to upper Shannon– which may not be in the interests of Squamish, climbers, and the Park. It would in effect privatize upper Shannon.
As part of the Access Society, I was a member of the study team that got the Chief and area made into a provincial park in 1995, drafted a management plan, and looked after the park for years. When the park was created, we considered what the boundaries should be, in context of other uses and needs, particularly forestry and mining. (Some of the area outside the park was and may still be subject to mineral claims.) We also considered what might be added to the park, including the upper Malamute, which we couldn’t get added at the time, and the gravel pit, which we thought had been safely added in 2005 so as to protect the park – until we were betrayed.
The boundaries were set so as to be continuous with what became Shannon Falls Provincial Park, rise to the height of land east of the Chief, include Slhanay, and be bounded by the roads to the west. Upper Olesen Creek and upper Shannon were specifically left out of the park, the former due to the road zigzagging through it, the latter because it really isn’t visible from the Chief. In both cases also because they’d been logged, and were in the working forest. It made sense to us – define the area which reasonably needed to be protected, and could be, but don’t ask for more.
I don’t know what the actual value of recreation in upper Olesen is now, as compared to its value for forestry. Likewise the respective values of forestry and recreation in upper Shannon. Whether the recent spurt in recreation will be sustained is also an open question. Many of the routes, cliffs and climbs up there were explored years if not decades ago. It may be a “nine days wonder” situation.
Forestry continues to be important to the economies of Squamish and B.C. Perhaps less so than it was, but still important. Removing upper Olesen and/or upper Shannon from the working forest would have significant economic impacts. A reasonable balance needs to be found, perhaps in allowing “state of the art” logging in those areas, as a showcase as to how forestry, recreation and tourism really can co-exist. Not just standard cut blocks, as may be what is planned, but something really well done. It could even be a display for tourists of what responsible, truly sustainable modern forestry is about. (The promoters of the recent development acknowledged that upper Shannon would in due course be re-logged.)
Climbers have slowly built a positive relationship with Squamish and its people. Our interest is to maintain that, protect the Park, and be open to responsible forestry in upper Olesen and upper Shannon. Knee jerk opposition to long-planned logging seems unwise, and may not help climbers, and the Park. As someone said not long ago, it’s not as though the area is a wilderness, or that no development is visible from the Chief. Perhaps there’s a need to revisit the Park’s boundaries, after nearly 20 years – bearing in mind that it will always be vulnerable to commercial/industrial development and incompetent or corrupt governments. Reopening the boundaries of a Park with values of international significance requires careful thought, particularly bearing in mind the pressures on it.
On a final note, I ask that those contributing to this discussion disclose all business, financial or personal links that you or family members have with the bodies and individuals that are involved or may be affected – conflicts of interest. (I speak only on behalf of myself.) And don’t forget that the government may have already decided what’s going to happen.
Re: Logging planned above Squaw/ Olson creek
Anders! How good of you to at last weigh in. We were wondering if FOSC had gone the way of the dodo or was merely stewing in silent contemplation. No matter, good to see you have embraced our industrial stamp on the land. Me too. Oh wait..... I must disclose my material interest in this matter which completely changes the meaning of my words. First, I occasionally bang together houses and whatnot with wood and nails plus I enjoy the lights going on when i flick the switch on the wall. A half dozen of my friends and relatives are actively involved in the summary persecution, execution and dismemberment of our surrounding forest.... so i can bang together houses etc. Worse yet my daughter is gainfully employed at that satanic gondola contraption, whereby I get 20% off guest passes and she looks the other way when i smuggle my dog in my pack up the lift.
OK that changes everything!
BTW in short I agree as do most people in recognizing the importance of the continuance of forestry in our local and provincial economy.... but then my obvious financial and social stake indicates an obvious bias so don't be surprised.... but then I so like smuggling my dog up the lift and hiking nice peaceful trails..... I'm so conflicted!!!!!! Still, bear me out. In the past year, even if it was not foreseeable before, it has become quite obvious that recreational demand in Squamish in general but most certainly in the chief, Olson creek and Shannon creek have significantly increased. There may well be room and value in selective logging there yet but for sure the current manner of valuation and consultation in determining that is deficient. In concert with BCTS a fair number of locals and organizations are working to fix that and us general publics appear mostly on board, no matter what we do for a living. If logging is to occur here, it must be designed to either not negatively affect or possibly even compliment the existing high value assets of trails, crags and views.
A couple of things to bear in mind. The regenerated forest in these areas are still young and marginaly economic. By the time it is harvestable the valuation of recreational assets will likely be even greater. considering this, you have to wonder exactly why any amount of logging in these two drainages are really critical at all for the continued health of our local forestry industry. Is our surrounding inventory really that crappy? Well no it isn't, it is merely a matter of BCTS doing the due dilligence they are professionally obligated to do in ascertaining and accomodating conflicting community values. By all indications, to date they have aknowledged this and are indeed working to resolution with all concerned parties.
OK that changes everything!
BTW in short I agree as do most people in recognizing the importance of the continuance of forestry in our local and provincial economy.... but then my obvious financial and social stake indicates an obvious bias so don't be surprised.... but then I so like smuggling my dog up the lift and hiking nice peaceful trails..... I'm so conflicted!!!!!! Still, bear me out. In the past year, even if it was not foreseeable before, it has become quite obvious that recreational demand in Squamish in general but most certainly in the chief, Olson creek and Shannon creek have significantly increased. There may well be room and value in selective logging there yet but for sure the current manner of valuation and consultation in determining that is deficient. In concert with BCTS a fair number of locals and organizations are working to fix that and us general publics appear mostly on board, no matter what we do for a living. If logging is to occur here, it must be designed to either not negatively affect or possibly even compliment the existing high value assets of trails, crags and views.
A couple of things to bear in mind. The regenerated forest in these areas are still young and marginaly economic. By the time it is harvestable the valuation of recreational assets will likely be even greater. considering this, you have to wonder exactly why any amount of logging in these two drainages are really critical at all for the continued health of our local forestry industry. Is our surrounding inventory really that crappy? Well no it isn't, it is merely a matter of BCTS doing the due dilligence they are professionally obligated to do in ascertaining and accomodating conflicting community values. By all indications, to date they have aknowledged this and are indeed working to resolution with all concerned parties.
Re: Logging planned above Squaw/ Olson creek
Can we get an update from the July 22 meeting? Would be great to hear what was discussed there.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests
