Poor Journalism and Alarmist Headlines About the Perils of Logging
31 July 2025The recent alarmist headlines and poor journalism is misleading the public into thinking that clearcutting is the leading cause of large floods. The reporting was very narrow and one-sided. None of the articles I have read researched or presented any alternate viewpoints.
I am wading through the original report that is the subject of the articles. The research was conducted in a water shed in South Carolina. So far, I am questionning the findings, or at least whether the results are applicable in our area.
I was born, and have lived in, the same area of the southern interior of BC for most of my life. For most of that time I have resided on, or near, rivers and lakes.
I was an emergency responder in a community located on a flood plain for 20 years and had to deal with numerous high water and flood events in that time.
I am aware of four major flood events in our valley, 1894, 1949, 1972, and 2021. As a responder from 1994 to 2015 I also dealt with several “high water” events.
As we prepared for high water emergencies, we analyzed past events and came up with the following prioritized list of root causes:
1. Record, or near record, deep snow packs with rapid runoff due to either:
a) a longer than usual winter with a sudden late spring/early summer hot spell
or
b) an extreme rain event on heavy, late fall/early winter snowpack)
2. Improper diking with lack of maintenance and no stream bed dredging
3. Uncontrolled development on floodplains
4. Upslope urbanization (paved roads, parking lots and storm drains preventing water from absorbing into soils)
5. We recently included large and intense wildfires.
Here are some questions for the researchers that I feel the reporters should have asked:
a) Where does clearcutting fit into our list of prioritized root causes re: effect on flood frequency and consequences?
b) What is going to increase the frequency and severity of flooding more – a well planned clearcut or large, out of control wildfire?
c) Considering the required, rapid re-forestation that takes place on all logged areas how long will the alleged effects of clearcutting on flood potential last?
d) In our area of the Southern Interior we experience drought, and water shortages, far more regularly than floods. Do clearcuts add to the available water for human use in drought years?
As well I feel we should be careful where we get our advice. According to their own website hydrologists do not have professional designation and hence no governing body to set or enforce standards of practice. They are like “ecologists” or “geographers”. Their knowledge may be valuable but they cannot sign land management plans or prescriptions or even give advice.
Also, I suggest we use care on listening to, and reporting on, people who are constantly raging “against” something without offering sound alternate solutions.
Here are some personal experiences that may have improved the perspective of the articles:
1. Clearcuts don’t stay clearcuts for long. They are reforested promptly after harvest. The two pictures below are off a stand of trees that was clearcut in 1957. It is a forest.
The basin pictured below has been harvested (clearcuts of various sizes) almost entirely at various intervals since the late 1960’s.
I was just working here. It looks like a forest, smells like a forest, sounds like a forest and feels like a forest. Give me a call and I can take you out there to show you.
Clearcuts may be the most desirable form of harvesting trees depending on the ecosystem and management objectives.
2. In my experience our best chance to stop wildfires is on managed lands. (ie: cut-blocks, roads, grazed areas and trails). We recently stopped an approaching intense wildfire burning at the edge of the area pictured above in a 50-year-old planted stand. It was clearcut in 1972, broadcast burned, replanted.
In my experience we lose fires, and they burn more intensely, in areas that are protected such as riparian leave strips, parks, wild-life tree patches, ecological reserves and other protected areas. The extremely heavy fuel load in the reserved area pictured below will make any chance of successful fire suppression unlikely.
3. The effects of wildfires on a water shed can be immediate and severe. Below is a picture of local medium sized river just downstream of an active, large and intense wildfire after only a 45-minute moderate rain fall. The area hadn’t had any logging since the early 1960’s and the valley burned side to side at very high intensity due to the extremely heavy fuel load (pictured above) and steep slopes. Landslides and washouts occurred, the water supply became undrinkable and the water level rose dramatically.
I didn’t observe any water or soil issues on the adjacent recent logged areas or upstream of the burned area.
Feel free to contact me anytime and I can show you around the local forest and discuss this further.
Doug MacLeod