No Beetle Bucks for Private Property Owners

Saturday, January 13, 2007 03:59 AM

There may be money for the Airport, but the Federal government is not going to offer any dollars to help private land owners to remove beetle dead trees.

"That has never been a committment by the Prime Minister." says Natural Resource Minister Gary Lunn. "When he made a committment for a billion dollars it was: number one, to look at rotecting our forests and resources . Number two, forest related industry itself. And then obviously the communities effected. so it has never been the intentio,it has never been suggested that this is a pool of money we can start handing out to homeowners. So we're here for the interest of British Columbians and these communities, but that has never been ever been part of the program. I know its been suggested by some of the local people but in my conversations with the Province, they have no interest there as well."

One of the Councilors from the City of Kamloops had suggested there be income tax breaks for property owners who had hefty bills to pay to have dead trees removed from their property. "We are open to suggestions, but I want to be crystal clear here" says Lunn "the focus of this money committed by the Prime Minister is one: on our forests and natural resources and on our industry. As you know there are many many communities in northern British Columbia that soley rely on the forest industry. That's been our priority on the mitigation , the long term sustainability and long term economic diversification where it can create meaningful permannet jobs, so that ( tax breaks) is not something that is being considered at this time".

While the Minister says "many many communities rely soley on the forest industry", and that the infestation is "mind boggling" he would not explain why the Federal Government has not declared this infestation a natural disaster "Listen, we' have committed a billion dollars over ten years, that's the largest committment that any government has committed to this pine beetle infestation. I think our committment on fighting this infestation has been nothing but first class. A billion dollars over ten years is an enormous amount of money and I think we can be very proud of our Prime Minister for that committment."

But when pressed on why this has not been declared a natural disaster, the Minister ended the interview.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 03:59 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: thereasonableman on January 13 2007 9:25 AM

Here's a clue, the mills don't want the wood anyway. All you can do is burn it.

It's dry, cracked, twisted, hard to recover quality boards from. Most of it goes to economy boards or wood chips. Unless they can get it for nothing, like they were the previous two years (up until March 31, 2006 when the stumpage rates changed, as well as the stumpage stratum) it is not economically feasible to take it. That is why the BC Gov't. is going to let all of that dead red wood burn in forest fires. Let nature clean it up. This would be a good year to invest in a sprinkler system, water tank, fire pump, or any other fire-fighting device, if you live near this stuff. It really is going to go up in spectacular fires.

Posted by: metalman on January 13 2007 10:14 AM

Again, how about harvesting some of this bounty for firewood? I mean convict labour. They are doing some now I know, but could be doing more. Elderly and low income folks who heat with wood could benefit. I think that although there are costs associated with this for supervision, and transportation etc, it is a good idea. At the least, cheap labour for cleaning up municipal and private lots that have to be logged.
metalman.

Posted by: Triman on January 13 2007 10:56 AM

I'm not involved in the lumber/logging industry and I don't have any bug infested trees on my property. However, I think we could make a case for help in removing the trees in this way.
The govt. should look at reducing the stumpage on the wood posing a fire hazard to residences, businesses and public grounds. In this way the mills would be more willing to take this wood as it would obviously be cheaper than the wood that they have to pay for. If it would apply only to those who live in a residential setting or have trees that may prove to be a fire hazard to their homes, then it would be easier for those home owners to get the trees out. It would not be a direct grant to offset costs. The government would simply forgo the possibility of collecting stumpage for those trees that pose a hazard to towns and residences. It wouldn't be a direct grant to towns and residents. Perhaps some of the small logging organizations who have been laid off because of Canfor's change in log harvesting would be able to get in on the gravy train, at least until all the wood is gone.

Posted by: Palopu on January 13 2007 12:54 PM

It seems to me that the Provincial Government granted the City a TFL for harvesting the trees within the City Limits, on City and Provincial Government property. The City I beleive is in the process of removing this timber.

How much more difficult would it be for the City to extend their logging program to harvest the trees on private property. You might want to have a minimum of 10 or more trees, and of course the City would keep the timber.

If any level of Government is responsible for a private property issue, it is the City of Prince George, who collects and spends all our taxes, and always seems to have multi-million dollar projects on the go.

Whats the chances of the Mayor and Council solving this problem on their own without running to other levels of Goverment with hat in hand, whining, for more money.???

Posted by: Gofaster on January 13 2007 1:38 PM

Sounds good Palopu but how can Kinsley go on all these all expenses paid trips if they have to take care of stuff here with the cities money???

I am not surprised to hear that land owners have to take care of their own land and the red trees therein.

I don't expect them to pay for my red trees... that is just life....firewood anyone....

Or if the trees are harvested as soon as the red shows and before the wood dries out it should be usable for something besides firewood.

Posted by: Chadermando on January 13 2007 3:36 PM

I am at a loss for the promised $1,000,000,000 in pine bettle funding when only $15 million has been committed leaving $985 million sitting in the pot for what? Two years have gone by meaning we should have seen $200 million invested in the region.

I think the federal government is having problems communicating with the communities on how we can collectively put this money to good well needed uses in diversifying and strengthening our economy.

For example does tourism qualify for these funds. Tourism is highly impacted by the changes in our forest. Are they also considered industry that relies on our forest in this region, or could they be considered part of diversification of our foret based communities? Some like Pat Bell will make fun of 'red forest tourist people' but the facts are it has huge untapped potential especially the eco-tourism related potential.

What about other areas, like resource based manufacturing not directly related to harvesting trees? Or how about the idea of a Northern perspectives magazine to bring Northerners together on ideas for the North getting grant start-up money?

Many many things I think they could communicate some leadership on IMO. OK we know there will be no money spent on forest fire safety for the home owners, so that is their first marker, but what about some of these other things like tourism. I guess the big problem with tourism is we have regional destination marketers, but no one with the organization to assist in developing this industry. Something I think an organization like Eco-tourism 2010 would be ideal for.

Time Will Tell

Posted by: Gofaster on January 13 2007 4:35 PM

I think you will find it funneled into the first Nations bank accounts there Chadermando

Posted by: thereasonableman on January 13 2007 5:10 PM

Prince George is a tourist destination just behind Spuzzum, BC.

I think we should just do something to avoid the whole damn Province burning to the ground this summer. If you go for a little drive on a bush road, preferably up high where you get a good view, you will see just how overwhelming the danger is. A complete idiot could predict a disaster.

Posted by: owl on January 13 2007 6:33 PM

"And then obviously the communities effected. so it has never been the intentio,it has never been suggested that this is a pool of money we can start handing out to homeowners. So we're here for the interest of British Columbians and these communities, but that has never been ever been part of the program"

Okay, let's remove all the residents in a community and what do you get? A community of flora and fauna .... homo sapiens is nowhere to be found.

So, he stated it goes to the communities. If City Hall is the representative of the community, then it is up to City Hall to ask for the money for community use. One of those uses is to save the community infrastructure which includes the various properties in the community. To suggest that they do not constitute part of the community is rather ridiculous.

It seems reasonable for the community (City Hall) to use the money to set up a program which will assist people to remove MPB attacked trees. In fact, it is already partially in place for removal of debris after the trees have been taken down.

http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/rec_culture/parks/urbanforestry

So, the feds are already helping. As they say, it is not no longer a matter of deciding whether to help or not, it is just a matter of deciding how much that help should be.

Too bad the Minister did not know about that program, however minor it may be. Maybe someone can get a few more programs working he does not know about.

Posted by: Chadermando on January 13 2007 6:49 PM

Exactly my point Mr Reasonable. That is why the potential is so great.

Just think of the huge money to be made introducing Europeans to Powder King when they have no snow in Europe, dito for the world class mountain snowmobiling in this area.

I know of people who plan their holidays around world class water falls, but have never heard of the Monkman Park waterfalls (second largest in North America), War Falls (five beautiful cascading falls), or the Muskeg Falls (remote and 200 feet high) all of which are within a few hours drive of PG. Add that to river tourism packages and it is a clear winning combination for remote wilderness adventures.

I'm sure Vanderhoof could get into the horseback adventures, the Lakes District fishing adventures, The North Coast wildlife viewing (grizzly bear, whale watching) & mountain glaciers, and in the North East they have the most beautiful section of the Rocky Mountains for all kinds of out door adventures. Thats not even the tip of the opportunities that sit there waiting for us to capitalize on them.

The advantage of this kind of employment is it creates a quality of life we can all enjoy, while providing independence and employment for a sustainable economy long into the future, while again at the same time providing incentive for Northerners to be good stewards of our natural blessings.

Problem is we don't have the infrastructure in place, nor do we have the critical mass to make this industry work in the North. Hence the need for an organization that can facilitate small business start-ups as part of an over all strategy to build the critical assets needed for the industry as a whole to work as one industry with a critical mass to serve the diverse needs of global travelers of all kinds and all interests sharing infrastructure and marketing for the greater success of everyone in the region.

Time Will Tell

PS People might want to live in a region like that and we might find that has value to it for those who feel we are not currently a desirable place to live for their family and loved ones who leave to experience life in more hospitable environments. More people as a result of this kind of industry means more profits for everyone, even if it is simply the value in your home, or the lifestyle you wish to have.

Spuzzem has nothing on PG in that regards IMO.

Posted by: thereasonableman on January 14 2007 10:43 AM

Spuzzum is more scenic, was my point.

As long as we have the Valemounts and McBrides right next door, we will lose tourists to them.

The term "critical mass" relates to radioactive materials, I don't understand how it relates to population ????

Prince George is and always will be a "mill town".

The morale of the story, however, remains that we will witness spectacular forest fires in this region, this summer, due to non-prevention.
They are playing the duck, pretending they don't see it coming. When it happens, "Oh, what a big surprise !".

Posted by: Triman on January 15 2007 11:09 AM

Your right on the money, Chadermando. However our area needs to be promoted appropriately by the travel agencies in Europe, Great Britain, the US and our own eastern Canada and how about China and Japan. Case in point, my wife and I met a British couple over breakfast at a lower mainland hotel last summer.
They had just completed a 2 week tour of the lower mainland and were catching a ferry to Prince Rupert after spending a few days touring Victoria and the Island. Their time was limited for touring the central interior, as the travel agent had booked them into facilites in Jasper and points south and east. I asked why they had only a day to travel from Smithers to Jasper and their response was that the travel agent had told them there wasn't much to see between Smithers and Jasper. It seems that many think of BC as consisting of Vancouver, Victoria, Jasper and Banff. How can we change that?