The watershed war

Logging activities on the north shore of Burrard Inlet became a persistent concern. In anticipation of a vote on June 16, 1923, to decide whether or not to permit logging on the slopes of Seymour Valley, John Davidson made a study of the effect of timber removal on the water supply and summarized the result of his investigations. Newspaper reports retold, word for word, Davidson’s Arbor Day article on the role of the watershed slopes in regulating the city’s water supply.

Support for his view came from Seattle’s Water Committee in the form of a letter to Vancouver City Hall that described the “most serious error” of selling the timber that protected that city’s watershed. Discussion took place on the editorial pages of local newspapers. Davidson’s arguments convinced Vancouver editors, who thanked the Seattle Water Committee for their courtesy and stressed to readers that timber on an ordinary timber limit had only commercial value. On the north shore watershed its “soil protecting, water-holding powers” and “scenic value” increased its worth. Since the commercial value could only be realized through destructive modern logging methods and at the expense of the other two values, the region should not be logged. In addition, editors thought that the threat of fire in the logged waste was too great. “Why should we take needless chances?” they asked.

Davidson’s most effective attack in the logging controversy was the published booklet of his presidential address to the Natural History Society, The Hand-Writing on the Wall, or, Wake Up! Vancouver, based upon his speech of October 1, 1924, “Conservation of Plant Life.”

Widespread distribution of the speech may not have been Davidson’s intent, according to one member of the Vancouver Natural History Society (VNHS). He wrote:

...the president stated that while he did not wish his address on Conservation of Plant Life made use of for any political purposes, he was quite willing to meet the wishes of the Society to have it published for educational purposes.

What’s more, the VNHS encouraged the society’s membership of 300 to cooperate in generating interest in the subject so that a definite policy of conservation could be introduced to protect the city’s water supply. Rather than speak out as a university faculty member, Davidson chose to speak out as president of one of the major Canadian natural history societies. He considered it his duty to speak up for the interests of all citizens, spreading “knowledge of things as a naturalist sees them.” This meant taking environmental consequences into account when deciding where to log timber.