At Resource Works, we are angry about what happened on the Cowichan Lake logging road – and we are saying so plainly.
In the early hours of January 1, three pieces of logging equipment were deliberately set on fire along Caycuse Main, near Lake Cowichan on Vancouver Island. The damage runs into the millions. Seven workers were laid off immediately. Families lost income overnight.
This was not an abstract policy debate. It was a very recent act of arson, carried out days after the holidays, with immediate and personal consequences.
And while investigators have not yet determined motive, no one locally was surprised.
Context matters – and locals are clear about it
The Lake Cowichan region has, for years, been a focal point for highly charged old-growth forest activism. That history forms the backdrop against which this attack occurred.
Yet as local forestry workers and community members have pointed out, the equipment destroyed in this incident was harvesting second-growth forests, not old growth.
That distinction matters.
We do not know who carried out the attack or why. We are not asserting motive. But when arson occurs in an environment saturated with absolutist rhetoric and repeated framing of lawful forestry as inherently illegitimate, the leap from words to destruction should not be treated as unforeseeable.
The climate of discourse is not neutral. It shapes behaviour.
Lawful protest and criminal acts are not the same – and the courts have said so
British Columbia’s courts have spent years drawing careful lines around old-growth logging protests, particularly following mass civil-disobedience actions at Fairy Creek and subsequent activity elsewhere on Vancouver Island.
In at least one notable ruling, a BC Supreme Court judge explicitly raised the possibility that certain protest conduct could cross into criminal contempt, signalling concern that some actions were no longer merely matters of civil injunction enforcement. At the same time, many earlier cases were withdrawn or collapsed on procedural grounds, leaving enforcement uneven and public understanding muddled.
That legal history does not excuse arson. But it does help explain how confusion has taken hold about where protest ends and criminality begins.
Why some still sympathize – and why that sympathy is dangerous
Part of the problem is that acts like this are often discussed through euphemism.
In academic literature, there is an actual term for sabotage carried out in the shadows: “ecotage.” It is not civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is public. It puts people on the line. It accepts accountability in order to move opinion, reopen debate, and test the moral legitimacy of laws in the open.
Ecotage does the opposite. It avoids accountability. It operates anonymously. It bypasses persuasion altogether.
Sabotage may raise costs, but it breaks the moral logic that gives protest its legitimacy.
Yet for those not steeped in academic debate, it is important to understand that this behaviour is not merely tolerated at the margins – it is increasingly rationalized. In published ethical discourse, some scholars now argue that while activists may have an obligation to pursue change through mainstream politics and civil disobedience first, categorically ruling out ecotage would, in their view, exclude a potentially defensible avenue of social change.
That is not a fringe argument whispered online. It is a position advanced in serious academic settings – and it matters, because ideas shape norms.
When destruction is framed as morally debatable rather than clearly wrong, the ground shifts. Acts that would once have been universally condemned become “understandable.” Then “regrettable.” Then, in some corners, quietly excused.
This is not an abstract ethical exercise. It is how torching equipment in the bush comes to be viewed by some as principled rather than criminal.
A deeper harm – beyond the immediate damage
This is not just about machines burned near Lake Cowichan.
It is about an assault on the rights of everyone who believes that by respecting the law, complying with regulation, and conducting themselves responsibly, they can legitimately go about their business.
Many British Columbians already believe that the corruption of how justice is defined – where some crimes are treated as political expression rather than offences against society – has begun to infect the legal-administrative system itself.
When arson against foresters, pipeline builders, or electrical contractors is met with hesitation, delay, or silence, the message received is not subtle: the rules are no longer applied evenly.
Crimes like these are not just crimes against specific workers or companies. They are crimes against everyone who depends on a functioning society built on trust, consistency, and mutual respect.
A pattern British Columbia can no longer ignore
The Cowichan Lake attack does not stand alone. Communities across Northwestern British Columbia – including areas around Smithers, Houston, Burns Lake, and Terrace – have experienced repeated acts of sabotage, intimidation, and arson directed at forestry, energy, and infrastructure activity.
The recurring features are familiar:
- Remote worksites (and sometimes not so remote)
- High-value, immobile equipment
- Workers who are visible but not powerful
- Ideological narratives used after the fact to rationalize destruction
Each incident treated as discrete. Each investigation prolonged. Accountability rare. That pattern is not accidental – and it is not harmless.
Four years is not accountability
Next month marks the fourth anniversary of the midnight attack on a coastal gas pipeline drilling site near the Morice River, which caused an estimated $20 million in damage and endangered workers in a remote part of Northwestern British Columbia.
Four years on, no charges have advanced.
Public reporting and court records indicate a substantial investigative record and a defined group of potential suspects. Yet the case remains unresolved, with no public explanation.
We are not alleging improper influence. But we are stating plainly that prolonged delay and silence erode confidence in the rule of law – and weaken deterrence.
Why the conservation movement should be alarmed
Those who should be most concerned about incidents like Lake Cowichan are not Resource Works. Our condemnation is expected.
The real risk is to legitimate conservation and environmental movements.
When criminal sabotage is met with silence – or worse, philosophical hedging – the public does not parse nuance. The legitimacy of lawful conservation efforts is diminished by association.
Most British Columbians support conservation. Most reject intimidation and destruction. Allowing an extremist fringe to define the outer edge of environmental action is not principled restraint – it is reputational self-harm.
What must happen now
Resource Works is calling, publicly and unequivocally, for:
- Prioritized investigation of arson targeting economic infrastructure
- Transparent communication when major cases stall
- Clear condemnation of criminal sabotage from across the public square
- Recognition that worker protection is a public-interest issue
This is not about suppressing protest. Peaceful protest is a democratic right.
This is about defending the moral and legal boundaries that make democratic protest possible. It is about defending the necessity of having policing resources made available so that workers are safe from ecoterrorism no matter where their workplace is.
A test of leadership
British Columbia cannot credibly pursue environmental progress, reconciliation, or a just transition while tolerating a creeping normalization of sabotage.
Arson is not activism. “Ecotage” is sabotage, not civil disobedience, an. And silence is not virtue.
At Resource Works, we are saying that clearly – and we are asking who else will join us in doing so..
