Roberto pokachinni

With the election of a new majority government, and yet to be announced Cabinet ministers, there is a further need to urge the staff of the Ministry of Forests to set the stage for our new minister to implement the recommendations of the Old Growth Review Panel.

The following is a clip from the letter-writing tool that Stand.earth has used in this new campaign.  Please, if you have interest in the subject of this thread, I urge you to create a letter, using these talking points as inspiration, and then insert it into their tool to send it as an email to ministry staff.  ...and following that is the link to the stand.earth email tool.

KEY POINTS FOR YOUR LETTER:

   Less than 1% of forests in B.C. have large, old growth trees still standing
   Most of these old growth forests in B.C. are still open to logging
   The new majority government campaigned on an election promise to implement all 14 of the old growth review panel recommendations, which you received in April
   The most urgent recommendation was to ban the logging of at-risk old growth forests within 6 months
   50,000+ people have signed a petition to end logging in at-risk old growth forests across B.C.
   While we are waiting for cabinet to be announced, Ministry staff should prepare a detailed plan for the next Minister of Forests to take necessary action
   Your Ministry already has the necessary information to recommend key areas for immediate logging deferrals
   The government’s announcement of logging deferrals for 350,000 hectares of land in September only included 3,800 hectares of at-risk old growth forests: these types of misleading announcements erode public trust in your work
   You must ensure that the Ministry is equipped to work with, and support, Indigenous Nations on long-term protection plans
   Will you please respond with confirmation that you have received this email and advise the new Minister of Forests accordingly?

[size=18]SEND YOUR EMAIL HERE[/size]

I've even tried those sites where you go through a multi-page personality test to try and match people who are compatible, but they just don't have a category for "I'm a borderline-autistic plant-obsessed science-geek and a Christian, who identifies as a wood elf."

 I can relate to being slightly similarly uncategorizable through such mechanisms.  I sympathize.  

Back to the subject of this thread:

Minds are not like other minds.  They evolve from singular origins and are affected by individual experiences.  

"Like-minded" has to mean that the person thinks (or agrees with the thinking) along the same lines as what is detailed in your own profile.  This does not mean that they think in all ways, always like you, but that they share your thinking about how you expressed your paradigm, or how you view the external paradigm as expressed in your profile.  

Anything that expects something beyond that way of understanding the phrase has to be laziness, in my way of thinking.

The nature of this thread's subject is the reason why my own dating profile (when I spend enough energy to care about such things)  has always been an essay.  ...but also why I get people both complimenting me on the details and extensive nature of it and also on my lack of hits from like-minded people, as there are so few anarchist, gnostic, yogic, permaculturalist bushfreak communitarians out there.  

I admit that the movie "Planet of the Humans" seemed to be all about scare-mongering and nothing about simple, positive things we can do to help correct the problem.

 There were pretty much zero solutions offered, and population control was alluded to, but there is no direction on how they proposed to achieve that.  I've seen a few Eugenics conspiracy things to know that leaving that wide open is pretty dangerous.  I won't get into that, but I'll leave you with knowing that I am no fan.

Although I'm concerned that there are too many humans on the earth, (mainly because our growth rate is climbing rapidly - I'd be less concerned if world-wide, we'd already plateaued) the Rebuttal video concretely states that the "problem" is not with the places with a higher birth rate, but with "techno" society (Europe and North America in particular, but Asia is striving to catch up)

I don't think we really have a population problem.  A rapidly expanding population is a symptom of an imbalanced and uncertain situation.  That is the problem.  Given stability, populations stabilize.  The unfortunate thing, at this time in history, about that is that most of the areas that have exploding populations are post-colonial messes and are in a cultural phase of third world poverty highlighted by an imminent and pervasive struggle to survive.   Compounding that is that many of these people see the consumer culture of the west as something heavenly that they should dream of attaining, as they see, consciously or unconsciously, that first world economics/lifestyle are a place of security and stability (and relative to their situation, it clearly is, so they are not deluding themselves at all).  So as their lifestyles stabilize, they want more of this 'dream' lifestyle, and end up becoming part of the problem.  If we can get them on the track of permaculture/regenerative ag, then we stop at least some of that in its tracks.  The numbers have been crunched and it seems that we can conceivably feed the entire planet on a 1/4 of the land presently being utilized for agriculture if we turned to regenerative agriculture and permaculture, and brought our global and personal meat consumption down to the very reasonable norms that were present a hundred years ago.  And then if we regenerate all the land that has degraded, then we are really able to sustain a population.  I think, that if our environmental and social situation gets under control then our population will stabilize and even drop (Most first-world economies/nations need immigration to have stable populations0.

our huge waste of power and resources on frivolous, short-lived products. When I was a child, our single telephone lasted 20 years, until "push-button phones" came along. Now a 5-year-old cell phone is considered old and frequently unusable, is just one example.  

 To top it off, our old phone that lasted 20 years or more had hardly any technology in it, and barely any carbon or resource footprint in comparison to a modern 'phone' which is essentially a handheld computer, with lots of rare metals and both a huge carbon and resource footprints.  

I've read two of the books presented by the rebuttal video - Burn and Drawdown.

 I'm nearly finished burn and was considering ordering drawdown and the Citizens Guide to Climate Success from the library.

 we need some of these solutions on *much* larger scale than our backyards, but that will take far more political will than I'm seeing here in Canada, despite the fact that many "green initiatives" forced on companies initially by either public pressure or governmental orders, were quickly discovered to actually save the companies' money.

 I think that a tipping point on that is coming pretty soon.  I'm hopeful that the new political situation South of the border with its probable re-engagement with the Paris Accord, will spur the horse, (so to speak) even North of the border as our economics are so closely tied.

At least biochar (which Burn focuses on) is something I can do on my own property. I'd like to do it on a larger scale, but as was validly pointed out, chopping down live trees to solve the "energy crisis" does more harm than good! Thus I'm relying on making more effort to find a way to biochar invasive species in my region - the problem is the solution!

 Yes, killing forests to create energy is hugely stupid, but regenerating a fraction of a huge area devastated by wildfire with a stand of trees destined to be coppiced for the purpose of making biochar (which also would supply heat or electricity or both) to replace coal in concrete and steel manufacturing would do much more good than harm.  I believe it could be carbon negative to many degrees.  What the wood to biomass to energy thing was doing, was that it was a process of burning the wood, or dried pulverized wood, or wood pellets, to try to substitute for coal, and that was not at all efficient or an equivalent energy supplement. At the same time the biowaste burning was removing forests that were sequestering carbon.  On 8-10 year rotation cycles even in B.C., we could create deciduous coppice groves that would provide all our energy needs, on land that is presently not producing much of any potential for carbon sequestration.  In addition, the (9/10ths)  parts of the coppice system that are annually left to grow would be a biological wonder filled with nesting migratory songbirds which thrive in such forests (and which would aid in the revegetating of the region), particularly if saskatoon and mountain ash (both with flowers and berries) are incorporated in the groves.  The living roots of the harvested trees would still largely hold the sequestered carbon in their soil root system, and this would subsequently expand as new top shoot/leaf growth was established.  

I worked back country trail crew in Glacier National Park back in the early 70's and we called those snags "widow makers".

 We call them widow makers here as well.  

We have wolves here, but have only seen the tracks this past year.  Enough people and dogs around that they do seem to stay back a bit.  For now.

 I still haven't seen a wolf on my land yet, but have seen the tracks of every major predator on it or slightly off of it, so I know that they are there, at least occasionally.  Seen, black bears, foxes, coyotes, lynx and grizzlies.  Seen tracks of cougar, wolverine, martin, wolf...  I'll be more concerned if I start to get livestock.  I'll likely get a dog or two.  We also have a lot of larger herbivore potentially on the land, 2 varieties of deer, moose, elk, and although unlikely mountain goats and mountain sheep do sometimes come down to this elevation.  All of the latter can be very unpredictable creatures, though they, like the predators, tend to keep their distance from people (and rifles).  Since I live near a good sized dairy operation, rifle training is pretty intense around here.

Having spent a few unexpected nights out in the woods myself, I tip my hat to Roberto!! Very glad that he made it out ok and was able to share his experience with us.  

I'll be that you have some stories to tell, Dennis.  Feel free to write up one or more  of your unexpected overnight adventures, and cut-and-paste it into a post in this thread.  By sharing our experiences, we may save someone else pain, heartache, or worse.

Here is a pretty serious rebuttal of many of the ideas from this movie, as well as, in the end, referencing a few really good books, one of which (Burn: Using Fire to Cool the Earth) I am currently reading.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNjLHRAP2U&t=212s

I can totally relate, Dennis Barlow.  Thanks for sharing.  Although I'm 20 years younger, my thoughts are often on 'what it'.  I have 40 acres and just a couple of days ago went there to clear limbs from trees encroaching on an existing road that I want to gain access into (I have to build a bridge to get to th old road with my truck as it enters my land from somebody else's).  Even though this is a very easy access part of my property (I walk on a plank, the creek isn't very big), I still carry a backpack into the area with minimum gear, but still some of it, including water and first aid and a fire kit and a coat and spare sweater.  I've got a broken dominant right wrist in a cast and I was going a bit stir crazy (I'm off work), so I decided to go try to do some left-handed hand saw work on this road.

There were fresh wolf tracks in the snow.  A neighbor informed me last week that a grizzly sow and 3 mature cubs were seen coming out of my driveway. It's prime season for moose to be at low elevations; and far more people are killed by moose and other ungulate herbivores than by bears and wolves combined, despite the irrational fears and projections of people against those 'predators'.  

The potential is there for lots of things to go sideways, and keeping a keen eye and ear out for anything potentially dangerous is always wise.  A dead leaning tree can kill a person faster than a wolf.  No danger really occurred the other day, but it's good to take note of things like wolf tracks, how fresh they are in the snow, which direction they were headed, etc., and maybe I shouldn't spend a bunch of time under this leaning dead poplar...  

One time, a few years ago, I heard a grouse explode out of a hiding place, but I hadn't started it.  I was too far away.  Grouse only do that when you are almost on top of them.  So I stopped and looked and listened, and sure enough, I saw a lynx off in that direction, and it took a while before it moved, first it's head then slowly moved one leg at a time as it slowly changed directions toward the grouse... I'd love to have had my binoculars on that day, but just the same, it is always a gift to pay attention.    

For those interested in light weight hiking and camping ideas, I'd suggest reading Beyond Backpacking, by Ray Jardine.  There are many ideas therein that are helpful in eliminating waste of effort through reducing weight, and by different ways of camping ad hiking.  Worth the read from a permies perspective as it helps reduce gear expenditures and thus resources.  I haven't followed through on a lot of his innovations yet.  But I had come to similar conclusions during my own weight savings measures.

The tent fly is pretty small.  Not sure.  about 5 feet by 7,  it's an odd shape.  Sometimes I take the old tent footprint; it's even smaller, but serves well as a crazy carpet too!

Hi Catie,

Roberto- what do you usually keep in your bag and what's it's rough weight?  

 hi Catie.  I tend to pack pretty light, and the weight varies (depending on water availability/water carried), quite significantly, and also on the season (more clothes in colder weather)..  I'd say anywhere from 5 to 25 pounds depending on those variables and on food or more gear for extending the trip (overnight or two).  The primary things that I carry are my first aid kit, fire kit, bush knife, folding saw, a few lengths of parachute cord or used bailing twine, an old tent fly, a stainless steel water bottle or two which can double for cooking vessels (I only had plastic bottles on the hike in question), bear spray, and aerobic oxygen (for water purification).  I sometimes carry snowshoes, a crazy carpet, if I'm intending to be in snow country (plus avalanche gear-transceiver, light folding shovel, probe) if I am with others),  or a Thermarest foam camp matt for better sleep if I am planning to be overnight.

Hi Hanna Omar,
And welcome to posting on permies!
Yes, avalanche risk is always compounded by individuals not having support.  Where I live backcountry winter activities are a part of our culture, and fatalities have occurred in avalanches even with prepared people in groups.  Avalanches are inherently dangerous, and, in order to navigate the snow areas that include avalanche potential, people should heed the advice of professional avalanche forecasters, wear avalanche transceivers, and have avalanche training to use those transceivers and rescue others.  in my work, all of those are mandatory.