FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Cutting the Bears Out of the Great Bear Rainforest

by CHRIS GENOVALI

Any day now British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell is scheduled to announce whether or not his Liberal government will ratify land use plans for the north and central coasts of Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest, the largest intact network of coastal temperate rainforest left on the planet.

But wildlife scientists warn that the Great Bear Rainforest agreement won’t protect the “Great Bears” of BC’s north coast. A new study commissioned by Raincoast Conservation Society, “Wayward Course” by Canadian bear biologists Dr. Brian Horejsi and Dr. Barrie Gilbert, shows that 80% of grizzly bear habitat will remain unprotected under the currently proposed land use plan for the north coast.

Horejsi and Gilbert analyzed the protected areas in the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and found that they are woefully inadequate in terms of protecting grizzly habitat. For this reason they are recommending that if Premier Campbell decides to implement the agreement, he needs to significantly expand the protected areas on the north coast in both size and number through the protection of approximately 2025 square kilometers of additional core grizzly habitat. These areas would have to remain roadless, encompass primarily productive habitat consisting of salmon-rich rivers and old growth forests, and be off-limits to trophy hunting.

In their analysis of the proposed north coast protected areas, Horejsi and Gilbert found that:

* Approximately 80% of grizzly habitat in the northern Great Bear Rainforest would still remain threatened with industrial logging, mining and road building if the provincial government implements the current agreement as is.

* Only 4 out of 19 protected areas, that are inhabited by grizzlies in the region, are large enough in size or satisfactorily connected to other areas of suitable habitat to allow this wide-ranging species to persist. The previous New Democratic Party government already protected one of these areas, the Khutzemayteen, nearly 20 years ago.

* Half of the protected areas consist of habitat that is largely unsuitable to grizzlies; areas such as steep slopes, ice fields, and lands fragmented by clearcuts and logging roads.

* Many of the protected areas are completely isolated. Under the agreement, bears attempting to move between these areas will have to use pathways through an unprotected and increasingly industrialized landscape of clearcuts, roads and expanding human settlements.

* The agreement provides far less habitat protection for grizzlies than in the coastal temperate rainforests of neighboring Alaska, where 90% of grizzly habitat is protected under federal roadless rules that effectively maintain the areas core wilderness.

In a region recognized worldwide for its uniquely rare and largely intact mainland and island ecosystems, one would expect that a modern conservation strategy would strongly reflect the findings of the scientific community. The land use proposals for both the central and north coasts fall considerably short of the conservation strategies provided by the Coast Information Team (CIT), the committee of expert scientists that have advised the planning processes. The CIT identified 44% protection as the minimum requirement for maintaining biodiversity in this globally significant region. Even higher levels of protection (as much as 70%) would be necessary to ensure that threats to biodiversity values remain at a low risk in perpetuity.

Additional research conducted by Raincoast scientists on the degree to which the agreement protects wildlife indicates that the agreement fails to protect enough habitat for a plethora of species. Furthermore, as it stands now sport hunting of large carnivores will be allowed in all of the new proposed protected areas. Protection of aquatic habitat would be similarly compromised. In fact, Raincoast’s research shows that salmon, the most important food source of coastal grizzlies, remain at a serious risk of decline from the potential loss of spawning and rearing habitat from logging and other industrial activity; 75% of chum and chinook, 74% of coho, 72% of pink, and 67% of sockeye populations in the Great Bear Rainforest are not protected under the agreement.

So-called Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) is being relied upon to compensate for the low level of protection provided for under the agreement, but there is currently far too much uncertainty as to what EBM consists of and how it will be implemented by logging companies. Designating nearly 70% of the most significant expanse of coastal temperate rainforest on earth as a laboratory for an untested experimental forest management regime and calling it a “safety net” would appear to be an exercise in “faith-based” conservation. Clearcutting, the logging of small salmon-bearing streams and other destructive forestry practices will be permitted on nearly 86% of the most valuable and productive forest sites in the region. These findings, along with those of the CIT, conclude that the land use plans for the central and north coasts are inadequate to protect key wildlife species throughout the Great Bear Rainforest.

[“Wayward Course” can be downloaded from the Raincoast website at http://www.raincoast.org]

CHRIS GENOVALI is executive director of the Raincoast Conservation Society and can be reached at: chris@raincoast.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CLARIFICATION

ALEXANDER COCKBURN, JEFFREY ST CLAIR, BECKY GRANT AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF JOURNALISTIC CLARITY, COUNTERPUNCH

We published an article entitled “A Saudiless Arabia” by Wayne Madsen dated October 22, 2002 (the “Article”), on the website of the Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity, CounterPunch, www.counterpunch.org (the “Website”).

Although it was not our intention, counsel for Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi has advised us the Article suggests, or could be read as suggesting, that Mr Al Amoudi has funded, supported, or is in some way associated with, the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

We do not have any evidence connecting Mr Al Amoudi with terrorism.

As a result of an exchange of communications with Mr Al Amoudi’s lawyers, we have removed the Article from the Website.

We are pleased to clarify the position.

August 17, 2005

 

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail