Standing on an alpine meadow on Vancouver Island in 1846, you’d be faced with a view of old-growth forest as far as the eye could see. You’d find giant cedar trees hosting an incredible abundance of birds, animals, plants and mushrooms, all influencing one another to create the delicate yet resilient balance of nature. Countless generations of people lived here, managing those forests. Communities of people who were raised to live as a part of a reciprocal ecosystem — taking what they need to survive, while also caring for the forest relatives.
Since 1846, this world has been taken away, one cut at a time.
British Columbia, who, according to the courts, “asserted sovereignty” over First Nations’ territory in 1846, has managed forests hand-in-hand with forestry companies. A drastic shift slowly happened where Indigenous forest management, based in reciprocity for the land, water and air, was replaced by colonial forest management, based on European models of forest management that are profit-driven. This shift has caused severe ecological and cultural disruption to Nations’ territories.
The Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nation (MMFN)’s Aboriginal title case is seeking justice in response to unsustainable and inequitable forest practices on their territory without their consent. Let’s explore how forestry has directly affected the MMFN’s ability to manage their forests.
Cultural History
Within MMFN’s hahoothlee (territory), the ḥaw’iih (chiefs) held the responsibility to manage access to the land and water, and entire village sites were under the ownership of the ḥaw’ił (chief) of the local group residing there. The territory was managed under guiding principles according to MMFN’s legal order, which includes: hisuki?is cawaak (everything is one), ?iisaak (respect with caring), ?uu?aaluk (taking care of), and stalth (togetherness). These principles, under their legal order, extended into forest management.
When settlers think of forest management, they may think of managing trees through logging and reforestation. But for First Nations, forest management is much more than just balancing out the number of trees. Generally speaking, traditional forest management was about interconnected relationships within an expansive ecosystem, where taking what you need is a deep act of respect and love for the life that is sustaining you. The relationship Nations have with trees is essential to their way of life and reciprocity for the entire ecosystem is always top of mind.
For example, MMFN has managed western red and yellow cedar trees since time immemorial. Cedar has significant spiritual, cultural, and ritual purposes for MMFN, and they harvested cedar through sustainable forest management practices. For example, MMFN would practice bark stripping, which leaves the tree standing with a scar that heals over time to keep the tree alive. The bark would be used for items like baskets and drums. The management of cedar would have been enforced under MMFN’s own laws and legal order.
Sadly, MMFN’s loss of jurisdiction to their territory has resulted in significant portions of their old-growth forests being destroyed, including cedar trees that were managed through bark stripping and other methods, otherwise known as culturally-modified trees (CMTs). Since 1994, thousands of CMT sites have been identified in MMFN’s territory. Sadly, many of those CMTs in MMFN’s territory have been cut down by Crown-authorized forestry.
Crown-authorized Forestry
MMFN’s forests weren’t clear-cut overnight. Settlers have been practicing colonial forest management prior to and since B.C.’s forest branch was created in 1905. The roots of the industry are more humble than we might expect – old settlers would take days to hand-saw a massive cedar tree spanning metres in diameter – but as fossil fuel machinery evolved, so too did the industry, resulting in the clear-cutting of entire valleys.
Some settlers raised the alarm about the destructive clear-cutting of forests. E.C. Manning advocated for sustainable forest management and conservation in the 1930s until he tragically passed away in a plane crash. Reforestation efforts began in the late 1960s and are now required for any forestry to occur today.
However, those efforts didn’t excuse the Crown from taking Indigenous lands and allowing forestry companies to log them, making those companies and the Province wealthy while Indigenous communities are left with the destruction of their lands and waters, not to mention their cultural ties to those forests.
Throughout most of the Province, the Crown leases the land through different types of forest tenure – Timber Farm Licenses (TFLs), woodlot licenses, community forest licenses, et cetera – for companies and municipalities to log the land. This infringes the underlying Aboriginal title of First Nations in B.C. When B.C. issued those forest tenures, they didn’t give Nations a say in how and where logging should occur. Consultation in forestry is changing, but First Nations still have too little a say over how forestry occurs on their territories – over half of MMFN’s territory is covered by various forest tenures without their consent, which is why they are going to court.
A lack of Indigenous decision-making and consent in forestry has led to practices that ignore ecosystem health for profit. For example, valuable timber near streams and rivers was heavily logged, affecting fish populations through pollution, erosion, and destruction of spawning areas. With fish populations on the decline, B.C. typically only requires 20 metres of a forest on either side of a fish-bearing stream to be protected, while the rest on either side is cut. This isn’t enough space for the interconnected watershed to be healthy for fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic species. Also, that protection is only for salmon-bearing streams, not underground freshwater streams and other water systems, which are called “non-classified drainages.” The forest industry ignores them completely in logging operations.
The mismanagement of water resources in forestry has severe repercussions for all ecosystems and species. For example, wild salmon have declined by 90% in Nootka Sound on MMFN’s territory largely because of Crown-authorized forestry, and salmon are expected to keep declining to extinction in 20 years if nothing is done.
Restoring Balance
Thankfully, MMFN is leading the way for First Nations in terms of sustainable forest management and protection. Their court case is just one way they are advocating for proper, consent-based forest management. MMFN started Salmon Parks, a conservation initiative that actively recovers key watersheds – and the forests within them – to protect wild salmon. MMFN is a leader in forest management on their territory with their own forest consultation policy.
MMFN’s title case brings jurisdiction back to the First Nation so they can guide forest practices on their territories. If they are successful in Court, a declaration of Aboriginal title will give them the decision-making ability to go beyond consultation – they could have consent over forest activities, giving them much more control of the forests they have stewarded since time immemorial.
