Speaking out against logging practices

Davidson told the audience that fire almost certainly follows logging operations and usually spreads into the green timber. As a remedy, he suggested banning logging in the watersheds and urged lumbermen to raise funds so that the department of forestry could “train men in the care and conservation of our forests, thus helping to compensate coming generations for the devastation accomplished today.”

Davidson accompanied the city engineer and other civic officials on a drive to the Capilano Watershed. These officials listened to what Davidson had to say and agreed with him that there should not be any logging in the watershed. Logging was a provincial matter, however, and the decision was not theirs to make.

The minister of lands, T.D. Pattullo, wrote to the editor of The Province. He claimed that the areas already logged were not eroding to the extent that Davidson described and that within five to ten years there would be enough cover for watershed protection. Pattullo also said that logging did not cause deforestation since “in almost every case reproduction follows the cutting and removal of the original crop wherever fires are kept out.” Patullo said that forests had value “only as they supply our needs and add to our pleasures” and that, since Davidson’s opinion was “apt to bear considerable weight in the minds of the public,” the issue would receive thorough consideration. In the meantime, he wrote, “the public should not be misled by such statements as have been credited to Dr. Davidson.”

In response to a VNHS request for assistance in the controversy, chief forester P.Z. Caverhill stated that, if the society wanted to discover the truth about forest conservation and share those facts with the public, he would be glad to help. He changed his mind, however, after reading Davidson’s pamphlet, and said:

so many statements which disclose either a lack of knowledge of the subject or an attempt to spread discord and misconception for some purpose not disclosed that I fail to see how it can further the subject of conservation in this Province, and is a type of propaganda with which I have no sympathy and do not wish to be associated, as I believe it can answer no good purpose.

Many Vancouver editors sided with Davidson. The Vancouver Star described BC forests as an asset of “untold value” that should be used intelligently. The paper said that all industrial activities must also include plans for the protection and regrowth of our forests. The editors felt that, since the general public did not have sufficient knowledge and their “specialist representatives” were “equally at sea as well as at loggerheads,” no action should take place until an agreement was reached. The Sunday Sun even demanded that a “vigorous reforestation policy” be put forward at the next session of the House at Victoria. They felt that, without such a policy, British Columbia’s great timber heritage would disappear like the forests in the eastern provinces.