Stumped: The Forest Industry in Transition

Dixon Thompson was Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary.

On the basis of experience and point of view, Ken Drushka has much to offer the discussion about the resolution of the problems facing Canada’s forestry industries. He is the owner and operator of a small sawmill, so it is no surprise that his assessment of the problems differs from that of the academics, civil servants, freelance writers, and executives and employees of large corporations. This book is important reading for those concerned about forestry in Canada because it challenges conventional wisdom, academic theories, and the criteria used to evaluate the options for optimum forest management practices. It should, however, be compared to the numerous reports and books available, such as D. Mackay’s Heritage Lost: The Crisis in Canada’s Forests (MacMillan, 1985).

Although it might have been better organized and more rigourous, Drushka’s economic analysis is revealing. A rigourous corporate financial analysis would show that because of the very long time frames involved in the harvest-plant-grow-harvest cycle, it does not pay to “invest” in forests. That is, individuals or corporations would get a better return for their investment in almost anything else. His too brief discussion of the “exodus theory” provokes a desire for more information and analysis. If, indeed, some of the large corporations are going to mine Canada’s virgin forest resources and then leave, that “exodus” deserves some careful thought and action.

Unfortunately, there are some significant difficulties with the book. It should have been better organized. There is too much history and information about forestry outside B.C., so that the central issues and the author’s proposals become lost. Drushka seems to have misunderstood Pearce’s recommendations on forestry. He identifies conflicts in multiple-use forestry but proposes no effective mechanism for resolution. A flat rejection of integrated resource management is not acceptable when no substitute is clearly outlined. He dismisses the “timber famine” as a myth, but his attack falls short of dispelling the myth, or even proving that it is a myth. His solution seems to lie in the statement that “somehow we must learn to manage the forest in the same way that farmers manage their land... become... cultivators and nurturers.” That “somehow” is too vague, and the analogy with farming fails to recognize the differences in harvesting time frames and the very serious difficulties faced by many farmers throughout Canada.

Drushka is right in that outmoded, conventional thought about forest management has to be challenged. The small operator must be given a larger, fairer opportunity to coexist with the large multinationals. However, until he can give much better indication of the likely effectiveness of his alternatives, they must be viewed as sceptically as he has viewed current practices.