Letters to the Editor: January 18

Cranbrook Deer Cull; Campaigning for Walbran; Site C and LNG folly

Deer Cull

Congratulations to Cranbrook for conducting a deer cull in a manner that kept the anti-cull groups out of the picture.  Seems anytime they get involved there are more problems than solutions.

Deer culls should not be construed as a prelude to the annihilation of mule deer.  Nor should it be considered an endorsement as the only means of solving urban deer problems.  Culls are just one aspect of wildlife management.  Resolving urban deer issues, means evaluating options, which includes education, translocation, contraception, hazing, human/deer conflicts, increased predator activity, deer/vehicle accidents, political agendas, both provincial and civic, as well as the agendas of environmental groups. Some of these solutions may or may not work.

The anti-cull groups would do well to back off and allow wildlife managers and elected city officials to manage these issues.

RC Kerr/Cranbrook

Campaigning for Walbran

According to Tom Fletcher, “an employee of the B.C. branch plant of Sierra Club lurks, apparently coordinating media and protesters” regarding logging in the Walbran Valley (Letter, ‘Avatar Sequel Bombs in Walbran,’ Jan 14).

He’s referring to me. Far from lurking, I’m proud to be campaigning with Sierra Club BC to save the some of the last significant stands of unprotected old-growth on Vancouver Island. (And, to correct but one of the many misleading or false claims in Fletcher’s piece, Sierra Club BC is entirely independent.)

Fletcher’s diatribe reveals him as Teal Jones’ willing stenographer, uncritically regurgitating the logging company’s talking points. Fletcher and Teal Jones may believe it is morally and ecologically acceptable to cut down these magnificent trees and destroy complex, delicate ecosystems. Sierra Club BC doesn’t, and nor do the majority of British Columbians, who support  concerted action to defend endangered old-growth trees, wildlife, a stable climate, clean water and clean air.

British Columbians know that these things form the life-support system of our planet and support long-term prosperity and a diverse economy, including sustainable second-growth forestry for current and future generations. A growing list of independent reports from B.C.’s Auditor General, the Forest Practices Board and even a Liberal MLA highlight the need for urgent action to save our forests.

It’s long past time for the provincial government to reverse the damage done when it gutted the rules governing logging. Fourteen years of trusting corporate interests to manage our forests with little or no oversight has got to stop.

Mark Worthing/Sierra Club BC

Site C and LNG Folly

As a professional engineer with 40 years of experience, I find it incredulous that our government is proceeding headlong on a growth strategy founded upon LNG exports and the construction of the Site C dam.

In business, the decision making process is based upon sound analysis of alternatives, sound economics, due diligence and approval by a board of directors. As it seems that BC Hydro and our government have rubber stamped approval, they have forgotten that as a Crown Corporation, BC Hydro is owned by the people of BC.  I have yet to see a credible business and environmental case for this project.

We have yet to see any FID’s by the various LNG project proponents, because BC gas faces tremendous worldwide competition for market share. According to the BP Energy Outlook to 2035, the LNG market will grow from 33 Bcf per day in 2015 to 80 Bcf per day in 2035. Currently there are 37 Bcf per day of new LNG projects under construction or soon to deliver first gas (10.6 in the US, 14 in Australia and 2.4 in Russia). That leaves 20 Bcf per day up for grabs of which BP forecasts 20 Bcf per day will come from East Africa, Mozambique and the Malay peninsula. Canada does not appear in the BP report as an LNG supplier in the report. In my opinion the Petronas project might proceed because of its ownership in the resource through its Canadian subsidiary, Progress Energy and its position in the Malaysian market.

Therefore, it is foolish to destroy so much of the rich Peace River eco-system, to supply electricity for one project at an estimated cost of $8 Billion dollars and who knows what the final cost will be. Whatever the cost, it is far cheaper to have Petronas make its own power from its own natural gas.

Another potential use for the Site C power, is for export. If so, where are the 25 year take or pay contracts?  Where are the market studies? And should only one LNG project proceed, won’t the power grid need to be upgraded to ship all the new electrons down to the US border?

If power exports are the real justification for Site C, wouldn’t it be far less expensive to use the existing phases which are planned and ready to be installed in the Columbia River system?

It’s time for our government to stop work on this disastrous economic and ecological boondoggle before we end up paying through the nose for future electricity costs, or worse having to sell BC hydro at a fire sale price like Ontario is doing with their former crown jewel which has been destroyed by short sighted liberal governments.

Randy Evanchuk, P.Eng./Kimberley