The constantly changing forest and trade policies happening right now in the United States are causing much expense and frustration for the B.C. forest sector.

Consequently, a sudden infusion of common sense from south of the border raises eyebrows. And possibilities for here at home.

The U.S. Forest Service and the state of Montana have set the groundwork for a long term agreement between the two parties. The agreement will allow timber harvested within three sustained yield units in the central state to remain there and there alone, for processing into wood products.

“We estimate that over the first 10 years, the three forest (units) will offer between 350 to 500 million board feet to local processing facilities in central Montana,” reckons Tom Schultz, U.S. Forest Service chief based in Washington, D.C.

“This plan will help provide stability for the forest products industry in central Montana while contributing to meaningful, on the ground progress that reduces wildfire risk, improves forest conditions for wildlife and expands outdoor opportunity for outdoor recreation communities,” adds Troy Heithecker, regional forester.

The Montana foresters are talking about is returning the magic word of “stability” to the B.C. forest industry’s lexicon. Stability and predictability tied to the anchor of a renewable, affordable timber supply—which they could be if the provincial government chose to act—would invite sorely needed investment potential into B.C.’s forest sector. Stability would also stimulate progress along the road to the forestry industry’s rebirth. The Montana strategy consequently, has appealing possibilities.

For example, the requirement to process logs close to their harvest locations, as used to be the case in B.C. Little is more infuriating for local loggers and sawmill operators to witness than seeing fleets of logging trucks hauling locally harvested logs to distant mills for processing. In recent years, the practice has become normal operating procedure, particularly among large forest operations with multiple regional sawmills. The practice is legal in B.C. but it wouldn’t be if such special units like those in Montana were created in B.C.

One of the latest cries to close that legal loophole came in July from Vanderhoof, a community of about 4,300 people in central B.C. The District of Vanderhoof and the Saik’uz Band issued a joint statement urging the provincial government to keep locally harvested logs at home for processing.

“The remaining fibre should create the greatest possible benefit for the communities where it was harvested,” declared Chief Priscilla Mueller, representing the Saik’uz Band. “There is still fibre available to support local mills and local jobs, but it must be managed responsibly,” added Kevin Mountray, mayor for the District of Vanderhoof.

The community’s recent trials and tribulations mirror the experiences of other forestry-dependent communities in B.C. The community is near the epicentre of the mountain pine beetle epidemic and the extended period of salvage logging in its wake. When that wound down, so did the fortunes and viability of Vanderhoof’s major sawmill.

Canfor, owner of the Plateau Sawmill west of Vanderhoof, pulled the plug on the mill in 2024. About 260 employees at the mill lost their jobs, not including logging contractors, truckers and all their varied suppliers in and around Vanderhoof (the Plateau site is now owned by four regional First Nations who operate it as an industrial park).

A Montana-style model for regional forest management could fit well into the B.C. Interior. Two areas spring to mind. The Cariboo region from Clinton to Hixon is one. The area from Prince George to Smithers is the other. The areas each occupy similar biogeoclimatic zones, with some exceptions: the Chilcotin area in the Cariboo region for example.

The management structure for the new units would require new legislation, not a bad thing given B.C.’s ancient Forest Act and the impediments to progressive forest policy it can present. A further requirement is a comprehensive inventory of each proposed region. Understanding what’s on the forest landscape now is fundamental to resource management decisions.

The forest resource map of the B.C. Interior has significantly changed. Provincial government exclusions and large, fast moving wildfires have changed the landscapes available for industrial forestry.

But there is a real world out there. And in it stands a forest industry-averse provincial government. The NDP under Premier David Eby has been myopic in addressing forestry issues his government could influence positively. The industry has been unusually vocal and unified in explaining its requests and offering to collaborate with drafting solutions. The B.C. Council of Forest Industries (COFI), for example, has consistently offered assistance to the forest ministry.

Access to fibre is the forest industry’s primary focus. The government isn’t offering a consistent enough flow of wood to keep prices affordable and sawmills across the province operating. It’s those primary production centres which trigger secondary wood product manufacture and help sustain rural and mid-sized communities across B.C. But despite industry’s pleas for action, the reaction from the provincial government has been one of silence.

Interestingly, the premier discovers his tongue on matters over which he has no influence. Eby is vocal in his condemnation of U.S. President Donald Trump, especially when Trump lambasts Canadian softwood lumber imports, throwing tariffs and insults around like a Saturday night brawler.

Premier Eby clearly has plenty on his plate. While the opposition Conservative Party appears to be imploding, Eby’s personal approval ratings had also tumbled precipitously. But his NDP party is now seeing some recovery thanks to opposition rank chaos, and a snap election call was looking increasingly probable.

Going by past elections, there will be no shortage of belated promises made to help solve some of the B.C. forest industry’s problems. Will the promises be enough and more importantly, will they be kept? The forest industry has every right to be skeptical.