No Place for “No”: Falls Creek and the Silencing of Opposition

Timber harvesting in a community watershed as large and important as Falls Creek does not happen by accident. It can only occur because a decision has already been made by the Ministry of Forests that such activity is acceptable. That decision exists regardless of whether it is framed as a BC Timber Sales (BCTS) plan, a technical process, or an operational detail. The authority may be distributed, but the policy decision is real and it matters.

This reality is critical when governments and agencies engage the public. When an engagement process is designed in a way that constrains what people are allowed to respond to, it fundamentally alters the purpose of consultation itself. If key viewpoints such as opposition to any harvesting in a community drinking water watershed are excluded by design, the process risks functioning as validation rather than consultation. Constraining engagement in this way primarily serves institutional convenience, not public understanding or watershed protection.

Why survey design matters

Public engagement outputs such as surveys, summaries, and “what we heard” reports are not neutral artifacts. They are routinely relied upon by staff, executives, and ministers as evidence of public sentiment. They inform briefings, justify decisions, and shape future policy directions.

When opposition to harvesting is excluded from these tools, the resulting record can later be used to claim that the community was consulted and did not object, even when that is demonstrably untrue. This is not a technical oversight; it is a structural failure that produces a misleading public record. This concern applies regardless of how proposed activities are framed, including under the banner of wildfire mitigation.

Excluding “no harvesting” as an option does not make that position disappear. It simply removes it from formal documentation. And once a viewpoint is absent from the record, it has no pathway to reach decision-makers.

The role of community engagement

The role of a community engagement consultant is not to filter public opinion based on institutional convenience or jurisdictional limits. It is to gather and accurately document the full range of community perspectives, including those that challenge the premise of a project entirely.

The fact that BC Timber Sales may not have the authority to act on certain views does not make those views irrelevant. Lack of authority to act does not equate to a lack of responsibility to listen or record. Engagement is not about what can be implemented; it is about what is being said.

If a community engagement framework precludes certain outcomes because of prior government decisions, those constraints must be made explicit and documented upfront. They cannot be embedded silently in survey design, where participants reasonably assume their views are being fully captured.

Accountability depends on the record

If no one involved in an engagement process is willing or able to document opposition to harvesting, then there is no accountable pathway for that opposition to reach senior decision-makers. This severs the connection between the public and those responsible for weighing risks, trade-offs, and long-term consequences, especially in something as fundamental as drinking water protection.

At the same time, communities are being asked to give significant amounts of time and energy to these processes. People show up after work, step away from family responsibilities, and engage in good faith. To do so while structuring engagement in a way that excludes deeply held and widely expressed concerns is simply unfair.

For the record

For the record, many community members, myself included, object to any BC Timber Sales activity within the Falls Creek community watershed. We will continue to advocate for watershed protection, transparency in decision-making, and engagement processes that genuinely reflect the voices of the people most affected. If you haven’t yet, sign the petition: https://www.friendsoffallscreek.ca/petition

Protecting drinking water requires more than process. It requires honesty about constraints, respect for community input, and a public record that tells the full truth, not just the convenient parts. Communities deserve engagement processes that are transparent about their limits and willing to formally record dissent, especially when drinking water is at stake.