Giant yellow cedar felled on Vancouver Island despite protections, prompting ministry probe
A 2.79 m-diameter yellow cedar on Crown land south of Gold River was felled during a provincially approved harvest despite meeting B.C.’s 2.65 m protection threshold; conservationist Joshua Wright filed a complaint and the Ministry of Forests launched an investigation.
- Protected species threshold exceeded: the yellow cedar measured 2.79 m DBH, above the 2.65 m limit set by the province.
- Complaint and probe: photographer-conservationist Joshua Wright filed a formal complaint and the Ministry of Forests confirmed an investigation is underway.
- Systemic concerns: critics say reliance on operator self-reporting and narrow exemptions create enforcement gaps that can nullify legal protections in practice.
What happened to the yellow cedar
Photographer and conservationist Joshua Wright first documented the tree while it was standing and marked with spray paint. When he returned in June 2024 he found the tree had been cut as part of a provincially approved logging operation on Crown land south of Gold River. Wright measured the tree at 2.79 m DBH (9.15 ft) — larger than the 2.65 m threshold listed for yellow cedar under the provincial regulation — and said the tree “was clearly above the threshold for what the government is supposed to be protecting and what industry is supposed to be protecting.”
Wright filed a formal complaint and the Ministry of Forests confirmed it is investigating the incident but declined further comment while the probe continues. For reporting on the initial coverage see Global News and North Shore News.
What the Special Tree Protection Regulation requires
British Columbia’s Special Tree Protection Regulation, enacted under the Forest and Range Practices Act, defines “specified trees” by species, geography and diameter thresholds. The regulation applies to Crown land and some private lands under Forest Act agreements. For a tree that meets those criteria, the law requires the person responsible for primary forest activity to ensure the specified tree is not cut, damaged or destroyed. Supporting trees within 56 metres of a specified tree are also protected from being felled, topped or destroyed, with narrow exceptions. See the regulation text: Regulation.
The regulation imposes a mandatory reporting duty: a responsible person who becomes aware that a tree is specified must submit a report to the minister within 30 days, including the tree’s location (latitude/longitude), species and authorization details.
How a legally protected tree can still be cut
The regulation allows only a few lawful paths to fell a specified tree. The forests minister can issue a written exemption if cutting is necessary to protect humans or property, if a primary forest activity cannot reasonably proceed without cutting it, or in limited cases involving supporting trees. Supporting trees may be removed for road maintenance or deactivation, but this exception does not apply to the specified tree itself. The authorization pathways are narrow by design, but they require proper reporting and documentation to operate legally (Regulation).
Practical gap: media reporting on the Gold River case highlights that the system relies heavily on logging operators to identify and report qualifying trees. If an operator does not flag a specified tree, the protection mechanism may never be triggered in practice even though the law technically applies (see Global News).
Why critics say this tree should have been protected
For yellow cedar, the regulatory threshold is 2.65 m DBH; Wright’s measurement of 2.79 m DBH exceeds that standard. That should have made it a “specified tree,” ineligible to be cut except by a ministerial exemption, and entitled to a 56‑metre protective buffer for supporting trees. Because the tree was visibly painted and photographed before it was felled, critics question whether reporting and compliance duties were followed.
“The tree was clearly above the threshold for what the government is supposed to be protecting and what industry is supposed to be protecting.” — Joshua Wright
Government response and investigation
After Wright’s complaint, the Ministry of Forests confirmed an investigation is ongoing and said it could not comment further on the specific case while the probe continues. A ministry spokesperson noted that mechanisms exist to ensure compliance and that penalties can be applied if the investigation finds a violation (coverage: Global News).
Broader context: how B.C.’s big-tree framework developed and criticisms
B.C. began a high-profile big-tree protection effort in 2019 by protecting 54 of the largest trees in the province, creating 1-hectare buffers around them based on entries in a public registry (Endangered Ecosystems Alliance). That effort evolved into the Special Tree Protection Regulation, which took effect in September 2020 and set species-specific DBH thresholds for protection on Crown land.
Conservation groups and independent experts have criticized the framework for setting thresholds they say are too high, meaning many ecologically valuable old trees smaller than those limits remain legally available for logging. They also warn the exemption rules and reliance on industry self-reporting leave room for under-reporting and overuse of exceptions (B.C. Tree Hunter).
Implications for Los Angeles, California
Economic: timber and wood products from British Columbia supply markets across North America, including buyers and retailers in Los Angeles. Publicized breaches like the Gold River incident could spur procurement checks, chain-of-custody demands and potential supply disruptions.
Political & social: L.A. officials and environmental groups may push for stricter supplier due diligence and public campaigns urging retailers to avoid products linked to disputed harvests. Images of a marked, felled giant cedar can resonate culturally with Angelenos who value Pacific Northwest forests.
Practical actions for L.A. residents and businesses:
- Procurement: tighten supplier checks, request certification or prefer reclaimed wood.
- Advocacy: use the case to press for stronger enforcement and transparency in sourcing.
- Education: tour operators and conservation groups can highlight regulatory gaps in outreach materials.
Reporting, legal implications and next steps for readers
The Gold River case underscores how regional laws can have cross-border reputational and economic effects. Readers who want updates should follow the Ministry of Forests investigation outcome, request company reporting records for the cutblock, and compare other cases where big-tree protections did not prevent harvesting.
To follow original reporting and primary documents, see the list below.
Sources and further reading
- Global News reporting on the Gold River tree and ministry investigation
- North Shore News coverage of the incident
- B.C. Special Tree Protection Regulation (Forest and Range Practices Act)
- Endangered Ecosystems Alliance background on B.C. big-tree protections
- B.C. Tree Hunter blog on protecting ancient trees in British Columbia
Preserve all facts: tree: yellow cedar measured at 2.79 m (9.15 ft) DBH; location: cutblock on Crown land south of Gold River; law: Special Tree Protection Regulation threshold 2.65 m DBH; complaint filed by Joshua Wright; investigation by the Ministry of Forests. For source details see the links above.
