Charlie Rensby has spent years making the case that forestry is not separate from community life. In Burns Lake, he says, it is the foundation.
A long-serving councillor re-elected in 2022, Rensby has also emerged as a grassroots advocate for forestry. He has organized rallies and fundraisers in response to old-growth deferral policies. He argues policy must include Indigenous partners, workers and industry, not only environmental voices.
Forestry as a living system
Rensby roots his views in personal history. His father worked as a registered professional forester for 36 years. He also worked in forestry himself and later became involved in forest policy.
For him, the case begins with community survival.
“The forest sector means everything … without forestry or some sort of backbone industry to support our community, it’s safe to say we probably wouldn’t have a community.”
Forestry debates in British Columbia often centre on public concerns about practices such as clearcutting, which have shaped how the industry is perceived in urban areas.
For Rensby, that argument goes beyond jobs. He ties forestry to infrastructure, recreation and local resilience.
He also pushed back on the idea that forestry and environmental stewardship are in conflict.
“We all want healthy, vibrant forests that provide economic activity as well as environmental protection … you can achieve that through forestry.”
That line became one of his clearest appeals to urban audiences. His argument was not defensive. It was invitational. He called for more dialogue, less caricature and more trust in people who live closest to the land.
A working forest, not a false choice
Rensby returned often to the idea of a “working forest.”
He described it as active management, not simply extraction. In his telling, selective harvesting, thinning and long cycles can support habitat, reduce wildfire risks and sustain timber supply.
“It is a constant life-growing sort of cycle in the forest.”
That idea aligns with what experts describe as proper forest management, where harvesting, regeneration and habitat protection are part of the same system.
He extended that argument into policy. Governments, he said, should follow science and plan beyond election cycles.
“We need to have a good, honest, grown-up conversation about what we need out of our industry and out of our forests.”
That was among his sharpest political points. It framed forestry policy as a test of public honesty as much as technical competence.
Reconciliation through shared purpose
Rensby also linked forestry to reconciliation, but in practical terms.
He pointed to collaboration in the Lakes District, where municipalities, First Nations and industry pushed for a reassessment of local forestry policy.
“Thousands of people go to work every day because of what this committee did.”
For him, that was proof small communities can shape outcomes when they work together.
He pushed the point further, arguing reconciliation is also built through shared decisions inside communities. That view gives forestry a civic dimension often missed in broader debates.
He also warned that if policy gets forestry wrong the damage will reach far beyond resource towns, however he remains more focused on solutions than alam, with a consistent message: trust science, empower local communities and treat working forests as part of the future, not the past.
Ian Biana writes for the Resource Works Accelerate team and can be reached at [email protected].
Resource Works News
