Your chance to post SHORT thoughts or BRIEFLY comment on those of others.
This is instead of a bulletin board which can be attacked by Spam.
NOTE: It is entirely at the discretion of the webmaster (and his advisors) whether a comment is posted or not.
Expect up to a 24 hour delay for a posting. Be accurate. Email addresses are not posted but just kept confidentially to authenticate any postings later.
___________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: It is entirely at the discretion of the webmaster (and his advisors) whether a comment is posted or not.
Expect up to a 24 hour delay for a posting. Be accurate. Email addresses are not posted but just kept confidentially to authenticate any postings later.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Click here to drop down to a form to fill in your comment.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Subject (if new): DoS Support on saving watershed.
Replies: No (yes,see inside bottom) Date: August 17/07 Name: Bob D'Arcy From: Sechelt
Message: The August 17th Coast Reporter reports, "Reid said the District of Sechelt supports the SCRD in its position, in terms of what it is doing to address logging in the watershed. However, Reid said the District of Sechelt isn't going to take a particular legal stance at this time because it could interfere with the process already started and could possibly go counter to the regional district." (Bold and italics mine). Would/could someone PLEASE explain this statement to me? Support but don't support? Gibsons can but we can't? What the blazes message is our Mayor giving us? Why not a legal motion that they support the SCRD all the way and the Watershed agreement too and the DoS throws their weight and some tax money behind it all to assist? Just like Gibsons and the citizens of the Sunshine Coast including those of Sechelt.
(Or is Sechelt Projects Inc. - the Community Forest in the way I wonder?)
Replies: No (yes,see inside bottom) Date: August 17/07 Name: Bob D'Arcy From: Sechelt
Message: The August 17th Coast Reporter reports, "Reid said the District of Sechelt supports the SCRD in its position, in terms of what it is doing to address logging in the watershed. However, Reid said the District of Sechelt isn't going to take a particular legal stance at this time because it could interfere with the process already started and could possibly go counter to the regional district." (Bold and italics mine). Would/could someone PLEASE explain this statement to me? Support but don't support? Gibsons can but we can't? What the blazes message is our Mayor giving us? Why not a legal motion that they support the SCRD all the way and the Watershed agreement too and the DoS throws their weight and some tax money behind it all to assist? Just like Gibsons and the citizens of the Sunshine Coast including those of Sechelt.
(Or is Sechelt Projects Inc. - the Community Forest in the way I wonder?)
Subject (if new): Watershed Protection from all risks
Replies: Yes-1 (yes,see inside bottom) Date: January 7. 2008 Name: Brian Smart From:
Message: I do not see anybody concerned with any risks to the watershed related to people being allowed to access the watersheds in a completely unreguated manner. I am most concerned about people bringing pathogens into the watershed, dumping of garbage and vehicular access. Protection means abating all human risk, recreational access is unfortunately not very compatible with drinking water. Consider the constant siltation from all season vehicular access for recreation. What if a car leaks fluids (antifreeze, oil, fuel) into the watershed? Protection means a lot more than many people seem to realize.
Reply 1 -Date: January 7. 2008 Name: Gord Bell From: Halfmoon Bay
Message: I must agree with Mr.Carson regarding potential threat from cars, trucks and heavy equipment.
A local small mill owner told me that an excavator used in road building for WFP flipped off its transport into the new ditch. This drained over 100 litres of fluids into the ditch. This incident was not reported.This is an opinion on my part, but here it is...People accustomed to spending a large amount of time in the woods doing what is esentially a destructive activity can develop a cavalier attitude regarding their responsibilities. If I had a dollary for every 5 gallon oil container I have found ....well you know the rest. NO vehicles in the wartersheds.
Replies: Yes-1 (yes,see inside bottom) Date: January 7. 2008 Name: Brian Smart From:
Message: I do not see anybody concerned with any risks to the watershed related to people being allowed to access the watersheds in a completely unreguated manner. I am most concerned about people bringing pathogens into the watershed, dumping of garbage and vehicular access. Protection means abating all human risk, recreational access is unfortunately not very compatible with drinking water. Consider the constant siltation from all season vehicular access for recreation. What if a car leaks fluids (antifreeze, oil, fuel) into the watershed? Protection means a lot more than many people seem to realize.
Reply 1 -Date: January 7. 2008 Name: Gord Bell From: Halfmoon Bay
Message: I must agree with Mr.Carson regarding potential threat from cars, trucks and heavy equipment.
A local small mill owner told me that an excavator used in road building for WFP flipped off its transport into the new ditch. This drained over 100 litres of fluids into the ditch. This incident was not reported.This is an opinion on my part, but here it is...People accustomed to spending a large amount of time in the woods doing what is esentially a destructive activity can develop a cavalier attitude regarding their responsibilities. If I had a dollary for every 5 gallon oil container I have found ....well you know the rest. NO vehicles in the wartersheds.
Subject (if new): Conflict of Interest
Reply: Yes-1 (yes,see inside bottom) Date: July 26 Name: Bob D'Arcy From: Sechelt
Message: I was amazed to hear that the Chair of the new Health Board is Councillor Ed Steeves of the District of Sechelt. This is a continuation of my concern that Steeves chairs meetings discussing the watershed issue at the SCRD. The District of Sechelt is the sole shareholder in an independent corporation (Community Forest) that has a logging tenure in our watershed and has made it clear that it is out to maximize profits. It is no comfort that somehow Steeves signed the Water Accord for the District (I have no idea how he could) or that the District has said no logging in the watershed for the first 5 years of their mandate (Mayor Reid originally promised 99 years! but everyone seems to have forgotten this). I guess 3 1/2 years from now is not an "imminent" threat.
I am not accusing Steeves of any malfeasance BUT he has a serious conflict of interest, the nature of which would not be allowed in any board (corporate or non-profit) that I have heard of. It should not be tolerated here for one minute. If he should exercise his District of Sechelt mandate (and I am not saying he has or would) he could guide the discussions and the results of those in directions more favorable to the District logging interests and to the detriment of the watershed protection goals.
Steeves should recuse himself whenever watershed matters are raised and that probably means stepping down as chair of the Health Board.
If he does not do it on his own then the rest of the board should act.
July 26/07 REPLY Name: John Bebbington From: ?
I agree, this is not the 1st time the "conflict" issue has been raised by other residents. It was asked by a resident at the recent "town hall" meeting attended by some 300 residents, and the question was directed to Mayor Barry Janyk. Until this issue is resolved by the balance of the SCRD board, it will always be "hanging" over every vote/motion that is "voted" upon by Director Steeves, if that particular vote/and or motion, pertains to protecting the drinking water and the Chapman & Grey Creek's watersheds.
Reply: Yes-1 (yes,see inside bottom) Date: July 26 Name: Bob D'Arcy From: Sechelt
Message: I was amazed to hear that the Chair of the new Health Board is Councillor Ed Steeves of the District of Sechelt. This is a continuation of my concern that Steeves chairs meetings discussing the watershed issue at the SCRD. The District of Sechelt is the sole shareholder in an independent corporation (Community Forest) that has a logging tenure in our watershed and has made it clear that it is out to maximize profits. It is no comfort that somehow Steeves signed the Water Accord for the District (I have no idea how he could) or that the District has said no logging in the watershed for the first 5 years of their mandate (Mayor Reid originally promised 99 years! but everyone seems to have forgotten this). I guess 3 1/2 years from now is not an "imminent" threat.
I am not accusing Steeves of any malfeasance BUT he has a serious conflict of interest, the nature of which would not be allowed in any board (corporate or non-profit) that I have heard of. It should not be tolerated here for one minute. If he should exercise his District of Sechelt mandate (and I am not saying he has or would) he could guide the discussions and the results of those in directions more favorable to the District logging interests and to the detriment of the watershed protection goals.
Steeves should recuse himself whenever watershed matters are raised and that probably means stepping down as chair of the Health Board.
If he does not do it on his own then the rest of the board should act.
July 26/07 REPLY Name: John Bebbington From: ?
I agree, this is not the 1st time the "conflict" issue has been raised by other residents. It was asked by a resident at the recent "town hall" meeting attended by some 300 residents, and the question was directed to Mayor Barry Janyk. Until this issue is resolved by the balance of the SCRD board, it will always be "hanging" over every vote/motion that is "voted" upon by Director Steeves, if that particular vote/and or motion, pertains to protecting the drinking water and the Chapman & Grey Creek's watersheds.
Subject (if new): Watershed Reserve registration - Chapman Creek
Replies: No (yes,see inside bottom) Date: July 26/07 Name: John Bebbington From: ?
Message:I would like to hear from the current SCRD board their position and understanding as it relates to the Chapman Creek watershed reserve, registered by the Ministry of Environment (MOE), at the express request of a previous SCRD board back in 1975. Why did the SCRD board in 1975 have this watershed reserve placed over the Chapman Creek watershed? Surely it was to protect the drinking water? This must have afforded "legal protection" to the SCRD as the purveyors of drinking water ? Otherwise why would the old SCRD board go to the trouble of requesting this watershed reserve from the MOE? if it did not provide the Board the protection that they were seeking?
In fact, a subsequent SCRD board took the Ministry of Forests (MOF) to court over issuing logging permits to INTERFOR LOGGING COMPANY in 1992, in the watershed, and both sides agreed to a "moratorium" which has been in place ever since. This legal action on the part of board would suggest that they felt they had a strong legal case involving the watershed reserve to legally challenge the right of the MOF to issue licences and log in the watershed. ALSO, since the MOF agreed to this moratorium, this would suggest that the MOF felt they did not have a strong legal case to challenge the SCRD in court and win. BUT for some strange reason, the SCRD of the day, did not request the MOF to remove any existing cutting permits that had been issued after the watershed reserve was created in 1975. This oversight by the SCRD allowed the logging permit that MOF had issued in 1981 to remain active until this very day and this cuttting permit is the licence that WESTERN FOREST PRODUCT (WFP) now are using to log in the Chapman Creek Watershed.
I would like to request that the current SCRD Board review the files pertaining to the 1992 court case and seek new legal advice to determine the validity of re-opening these files with a view towards putting forth legal action to prevent any future timber licences been placed in the watershed and to cancel the current one issued to WFP.
The SCRD should review all current registrations that are "active" in the watershed. When I researched the watershed reserve registration, I found that there were 62 other registrations, from trap lines, to timber licences. Each active registration should be reviewed for any potential harm to the watershed and the public's right to safe, clean drinking water.
In the injunction handed down last week to WFP, the Judge stated in his oral reasons, he recognized the right of the SCRD to continue to carry out their mandate and his order did not restrict the SCRD from pursuing other legal avenues to protect the drinking water, including a "judicial review" if the SCRD felt this would resolve their "lack of control issue" over any further industrial activity in the watershed. The judge went on to say "he noted no request was made for such a review" and this seemed to imply perhaps he was expecting one from the SCRD.
Replies: No (yes,see inside bottom) Date: July 26/07 Name: John Bebbington From: ?
Message:I would like to hear from the current SCRD board their position and understanding as it relates to the Chapman Creek watershed reserve, registered by the Ministry of Environment (MOE), at the express request of a previous SCRD board back in 1975. Why did the SCRD board in 1975 have this watershed reserve placed over the Chapman Creek watershed? Surely it was to protect the drinking water? This must have afforded "legal protection" to the SCRD as the purveyors of drinking water ? Otherwise why would the old SCRD board go to the trouble of requesting this watershed reserve from the MOE? if it did not provide the Board the protection that they were seeking?
In fact, a subsequent SCRD board took the Ministry of Forests (MOF) to court over issuing logging permits to INTERFOR LOGGING COMPANY in 1992, in the watershed, and both sides agreed to a "moratorium" which has been in place ever since. This legal action on the part of board would suggest that they felt they had a strong legal case involving the watershed reserve to legally challenge the right of the MOF to issue licences and log in the watershed. ALSO, since the MOF agreed to this moratorium, this would suggest that the MOF felt they did not have a strong legal case to challenge the SCRD in court and win. BUT for some strange reason, the SCRD of the day, did not request the MOF to remove any existing cutting permits that had been issued after the watershed reserve was created in 1975. This oversight by the SCRD allowed the logging permit that MOF had issued in 1981 to remain active until this very day and this cuttting permit is the licence that WESTERN FOREST PRODUCT (WFP) now are using to log in the Chapman Creek Watershed.
I would like to request that the current SCRD Board review the files pertaining to the 1992 court case and seek new legal advice to determine the validity of re-opening these files with a view towards putting forth legal action to prevent any future timber licences been placed in the watershed and to cancel the current one issued to WFP.
The SCRD should review all current registrations that are "active" in the watershed. When I researched the watershed reserve registration, I found that there were 62 other registrations, from trap lines, to timber licences. Each active registration should be reviewed for any potential harm to the watershed and the public's right to safe, clean drinking water.
In the injunction handed down last week to WFP, the Judge stated in his oral reasons, he recognized the right of the SCRD to continue to carry out their mandate and his order did not restrict the SCRD from pursuing other legal avenues to protect the drinking water, including a "judicial review" if the SCRD felt this would resolve their "lack of control issue" over any further industrial activity in the watershed. The judge went on to say "he noted no request was made for such a review" and this seemed to imply perhaps he was expecting one from the SCRD.
Subject (if new): community forests initiative
Reply: YES-1 (yes,see inside bottom) Date: July 27/07 Name: Gord Bell From: Halfmoon Bay
Message:We have all become defacto logging supporters. this is a result of the community forest initiative offered by the present provincial gov't.Contencious logging areas, gifted to small communitys has undermined our local ecology and water supplys.There are few local D.O.S residents i have spoken with who realized $400,000. of thier tax dollars were going to fund the start-up of our very own community clearcuts.This i feel was considered step by the province to create a conflict of interest on a local gov't level.It is also my understanding that Stan Dixon is president of the bands gifted tenure operation,which has become a direct threat to Egmonts watershed.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my sentinents it really helps ease my frustration..
Best wishs to all in handeling thiers! Right is Might!
July 17/07 Reply Name: John Bebbington From: Gibsons/Elphinstone
Message: I agree, the Province has allocated portions of our Grey Creek/Chapman Creek watersheds to the Community Forest Licence, and even though the District of Sechelt has said that will not log in the Chapman Creek watershed for 5 years, they have NOT said they would not log the watershed at some future point in time. When this day finally arrives we will yet again have another confrontation, but this time with our own elected officials.
See also "conflict of interest" topic posted on the web site to learn further about this madness.
These are sad times when our elected officials (both Provincially and Local ) seem to be hell bent on continuing to place business interests ahead of the public interests, especially when it comes down to our drinking water.
Reply: YES-1 (yes,see inside bottom) Date: July 27/07 Name: Gord Bell From: Halfmoon Bay
Message:We have all become defacto logging supporters. this is a result of the community forest initiative offered by the present provincial gov't.Contencious logging areas, gifted to small communitys has undermined our local ecology and water supplys.There are few local D.O.S residents i have spoken with who realized $400,000. of thier tax dollars were going to fund the start-up of our very own community clearcuts.This i feel was considered step by the province to create a conflict of interest on a local gov't level.It is also my understanding that Stan Dixon is president of the bands gifted tenure operation,which has become a direct threat to Egmonts watershed.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my sentinents it really helps ease my frustration..
Best wishs to all in handeling thiers! Right is Might!
July 17/07 Reply Name: John Bebbington From: Gibsons/Elphinstone
Message: I agree, the Province has allocated portions of our Grey Creek/Chapman Creek watersheds to the Community Forest Licence, and even though the District of Sechelt has said that will not log in the Chapman Creek watershed for 5 years, they have NOT said they would not log the watershed at some future point in time. When this day finally arrives we will yet again have another confrontation, but this time with our own elected officials.
See also "conflict of interest" topic posted on the web site to learn further about this madness.
These are sad times when our elected officials (both Provincially and Local ) seem to be hell bent on continuing to place business interests ahead of the public interests, especially when it comes down to our drinking water.
Subject (if new): Resourceful enterprise on Saltspring - similar issue. Possible here?
Reply: No (yes,see inside bottom) Date: Aug. 16/07 Name: M F Royea
From: Gibsons/Elphinstone
Message: We had a similar fight here on the island (SS) a few years ago.They were going to clearcut the Maxwell Lake watershed.
We managed to get them to agree to put on a conservation covenant after doing a timber cruise and we ( the Conservancy) brokered a 1M tax receipt with the Federal government for Texada Logging.THe watershed was deeded to the SS Water District and Texada got their tax break. I don't know if some similar kind of deal could be arranged with a conservancy in your area.
This has probably already been thought about but we were the first and, as far as I know,the only community to buy their own watershed and have the tax system work for us instead of against.
Reply: No (yes,see inside bottom) Date: Aug. 16/07 Name: M F Royea
From: Gibsons/Elphinstone
Message: We had a similar fight here on the island (SS) a few years ago.They were going to clearcut the Maxwell Lake watershed.
We managed to get them to agree to put on a conservation covenant after doing a timber cruise and we ( the Conservancy) brokered a 1M tax receipt with the Federal government for Texada Logging.THe watershed was deeded to the SS Water District and Texada got their tax break. I don't know if some similar kind of deal could be arranged with a conservancy in your area.
This has probably already been thought about but we were the first and, as far as I know,the only community to buy their own watershed and have the tax system work for us instead of against.
Subject (if new): Reparian Areas Regulations (BC)
Replies: No (yes,see inside bottom) Date: January 28, 2008 Name: Gene Pelly From: Sechelt
Message: I do not see any mention of these regulations. It seems some local governments, the District of North Vancouver for example, are going to great lengths to create "Streamside Development Permit Areas" and regulate any new building. They claim to be doing this to meet these provincal guidelines. Am I missing something?
Replies: No (yes,see inside bottom) Date: January 28, 2008 Name: Gene Pelly From: Sechelt
Message: I do not see any mention of these regulations. It seems some local governments, the District of North Vancouver for example, are going to great lengths to create "Streamside Development Permit Areas" and regulate any new building. They claim to be doing this to meet these provincal guidelines. Am I missing something?