[privacypoller]

You must have grown up on the coast or the island, because I grew up in the interior and they never had trees like that outside of the temperate zones. The majority of the province has logging but it is not giant, old-growth ancients and never was.

[temp64201292]

That is because almost all of the giant Redwood and Giant Sequoia trees in the Pacific Northwest were destroyed by logging by the start of the 1920s. Darius and Tabitha May Kinsey's Kinsey, Photographer: A Half Century of Negatives is a book of Darius Kinsey's photographs of logging camps in Washington and Oregon in the 19th century. The camps were inland and there are many photographs of the giant trees growing in the mountains. The giant tree forests did not stop at the US border, and BC had the same logging boom in the 19th century. It is disingenuous to claim that new growth coniferous and Boreal forest is the only thing BC has ever had, when most of the BC giant tree forests were destroyed only a few generations ago.

[btilly]

No, the person that you're responding to is correct.

When someone from British Columbia says "interior" they mean anything past the coast mountain range. This is a semi-arid climate that didn't readily support any of BC's large tree species, namely red cedar, douglas fir, and sitka spruce.

It doesn't matter how many pictures from a century ago that you have of big trees inland, or on the west side of the first mountain range. That's not the interior, and isn't relevant.

[btilly]

You are absolutely right. I grew up on Vancouver Island. And the giant Sitka Spruce is a coastal tree.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picea_sitchensis for more, including a map of its range.