Systemic forest management: How colonial logging, climate change, and Indigenous stewardship shape BC's wildfire crisis

Indigenous fire stewardship, such as the controlled burns practiced by the Secwepemc and Stó:lō peoples for millennia, demonstrates a systemic understanding of forest resilience that Western science is only now 'discovering' through projects like the Mother Tree Initiative. These practices were systematically suppressed under colonial regimes (e.g., the 1930s 'Indian Forestry' policies) and replaced with fire suppression tactics that increased fuel loads, paradoxically worsening wildfire risks. The erasure of this knowledge in mainstream narratives reflects a broader pattern of epistemicide, where Indigenous ways of knowing are sidelined in favor of Western scientific frameworks.

The current wildfire crisis in BC is rooted in a century of industrial logging that prioritized clear-cutting and monoculture plantations over ecological integrity, a model institutionalized by the 1912 Forest Act and accelerated post-WWII. Colonial land policies (e.g., the 1876 Indian Act) dispossessed Indigenous peoples of their territories, severing the cultural and ecological practices that maintained fire-resilient landscapes. Historical parallels abound in other settler-colonial contexts, such as Australia’s 'Black Summer' fires, where Indigenous fire management was replaced by European-style suppression, leading to catastrophic outcomes.

Comparative studies of fire management reveal that Indigenous communities in Australia (e.g., the Martu peoples), the Amazon (e.g., the Kayapó), and North America (e.g., the Yurok) have developed sophisticated fire regimes that enhance biodiversity and reduce catastrophic burns. In contrast, Western fire suppression policies—often framed as 'science-based'—have led to denser, more flammable forests, as seen in California’s 2018 Camp Fire and BC’s 2017 and 2018 wildfire seasons. The cross-cultural lens underscores that 'smarter' forestry must integrate Indigenous knowledge systems, not merely borrow from them as data points.

The Mother Tree Project’s research on mycorrhizal networks and forest recovery provides critical empirical evidence that forests operate as interconnected, cooperative systems—a paradigm shift from the individualistic, competitive models of traditional ecology. However, the project’s focus on 'recovery after disturbance' still frames forests through a lens of human intervention rather than recognizing their inherent agency and resilience. Scientific consensus confirms that Indigenous-managed lands often exhibit lower wildfire severity, but this is rarely integrated into silvicultural models, which prioritize timber yield over ecological function.

Artistic and spiritual traditions across cultures depict forests as sacred entities: the Celtic *duir* (oak) symbolizes strength and wisdom, while in Hindu cosmology, forests like Dandaka are sites of divine and ecological balance. In BC, Coast Salish art often depicts forests as living ancestors, a perspective that challenges the extractive framing of 'resources.' Western art, too, has long romanticized forests (e.g., Emily Carr’s paintings, Tolkien’s Ents), but this romanticism rarely translates into policy or practice. Integrating artistic and spiritual perspectives could foster a deeper ethical relationship with forests, beyond utilitarian or technical solutions.

Future scenarios must account for the compounding effects of climate change, which is projected to increase wildfire frequency and intensity in BC by 20-50% by 2050, alongside continued industrial logging and urban expansion. Models that incorporate Indigenous fire management (e.g., prescribed burns at 1-3% of landscapes annually) show a 30-50% reduction in high-severity fires, but these are rarely adopted due to regulatory and economic barriers. Scenario planning should also explore degrowth models in forestry, where timber production is scaled back to prioritize ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, and community well-being over GDP growth.

Marginalized voices—particularly Indigenous women, rural communities, and forest-dependent workers—are systematically excluded from forest management decisions, despite their disproportionate exposure to wildfire risks and their deep ecological knowledge. The exclusion is structural: Indigenous-led conservation initiatives (e.g., the Great Bear Rainforest agreements) are often co-opted by industry or government, while forestry unions resist transitions to ecological forestry due to fears of job losses. Amplifying these voices requires land back movements, participatory governance models, and funding for Indigenous-led fire stewardship programs.