[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.