Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range
  • Sort Results By

Comment Archives: stories: News: Environment

Re: “Local company removes almost half a ton of trash from Lost Lake area

Messy and bear endangering camping is wrong. But camping/vanarchy/squatting is what the economy has asked for. Ridiculously high rents and ridiculously low wages have made camping a necessity for many workers in the province and beyond. Get used to it because until affordable living balance is attained, the problem won't go away.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jimmy Bee on 05/11/2018 at 9:12 AM

Re: “Local company removes almost half a ton of trash from Lost Lake area

Bears get killed because of this and they only get fined $200?

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Mariborsalas on 05/10/2018 at 10:58 AM

Re: “COS searching for black bear exhibiting aggressive behaviour

Kim Delozier, retired bear biologist from Great Smoky Mountains National Park will be giving an online lecture next Tuesday regarding these more serious incidents. Yall should think about joining in... they are extremely educational. Visit the Wildlife for You FB page for more information.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Daryl Ratajczak on 04/08/2018 at 12:34 PM

Re: “'Bear saviour' says it's time for conservation officers to stop the killing

Steve Ronson is undoubtedly right that most conservation officers dislike killing "problem" wildlife. Those I know consider it a waste of a resource that other people could enjoy, whether by hunting the animal or watching it -- although most wildlife departments continent-wide are far more interested in hunting than viewing. In any event, executing an animal is distasteful even to most hunters. There is no challenge, no glory, no bragging rights, to their way of thinking. Most of all they hate killing baby animals.

The real problem is not that the officers are heartless or hunters or killers at heart. Rather, the real problem is that they are overly protective, fearing to take a chance that the animal will harm someone -- in which case who would not feel partly responsible? Officers also fear being sued by grieving victims and their families, allied with predatory litigation attorneys. (See my article on litigation risk in Human-Wildlife Interactions, 2013, which can be downloaded for free from the HWI website.)

Those of us who prefer keeping animals alive face the challenge of helping conservation officers learn to discriminate how much risk a bear or other wild animal poses, and how to minimize that risk without harming the animal unnecessarily. Along with my colleagues at the BEAR League in California, the BEAR Group in New Jersey, the North American Bear Center in Minnesota, and the Bear Viewing Association in Alaska, I am working on developing just such risk-based criteria. Watch the websites of those organizations and the Facebook site for the Bear Viewing Association for updates starting in early April. Also visit BVA's website www.bear-viewing-in-alaska.

Creating such criteria and fighting an upstream battle to get the material published will cost at least $10,000. We are nearly half way to that goal. If you care enough to support our efforts, please donate generously through the BEAR League The principles we develop for providing bears with a fair trial and protecting them from unwarranted execution, can be retailored to apply to each of a wide variety of other animals that conflict with humans, including elephants. Thanks.

Stephen F. Stringham, PhD. President: WildWatch,

Posted by GrandPaw Bear on 02/13/2018 at 6:56 PM

Re: “'Bear saviour' says it's time for conservation officers to stop the killing

Shoot first and ask no subsequent questions. That is the ethic used by most government wildlife agencies when 'managing' wildlife. A large majority of employees at these agencies are hunters themselves and come to their jobs with the mindset that wildlife species are there are their taking, not to enjoy a peaceful existence in the wilderness. Conserving wildlife does not mean destroying it.

0 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by FortheVoiceless on 02/06/2018 at 11:10 PM

Re: “'Bear saviour' says it's time for conservation officers to stop the killing

"Trading on his popularity"....kinda says it all about this guy.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Steve Ronson on 02/06/2018 at 10:22 AM

Re: “'Bear saviour' says it's time for conservation officers to stop the killing

This guy is an idiot I know lots of conservation officers and they get no pleasure from putting down a problem animal but it is part of the job

11 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Mark Kofluk on 02/05/2018 at 10:01 PM

Re: “Auditor general slams B.C.'s approach to grizzly conservation

Most Sea to sky locals would be shocked to hear how many Grizzlies are in our corridor now...more than 35 and that was an estimate 6-7 years ago of the Squamish valley alone.

In the early 90s there were fewer than a handful at best

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Scott Baker-McGarva on 01/02/2018 at 6:06 PM

Re: “Whistler bucked B.C.-wide bear-conflict trends this year

Solid information in this article. (Super cute photo too!)

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jeremy O'Twigg on 11/11/2017 at 2:13 PM

Re: “Construction begins on long-awaited Spearhead Huts

I think you exaggerate a bit with the "commercial" venture handle. Since when have Alpine club huts been anything but cost recovery to the extent they charge for anything? Commerce implies profit and the last I heard, the Alpine club of canada is pretty much like any Club. World wide alpine clubs are fundamentally a pubic resource institution, designed to help the public (paying dues members or otherwise) enjoy the mountains. Whistler Blackcomb is a commercial venture, the Alpine Club of canada is not.

That aside, I would hope that WSAR would be more cognizant of the advances in skill training and risk management that the locals and the recreational mountain community has demonstrated in the past decade or so. This is what any SAR group should encourage, particularly if they feel stressed in their call out volume. Each and every hut will likely be manned by citizens that could and should use their own skills, perhaps in concert with communications from you guys, to respond as appropriate. Personally, I would be a bit embarrassed for my community to be singled out among practically all mountain communities worldwide for the singular distinction of needing some latte sucking mountain guide twiddling his/her thumbs in a hut because we feel incapable of providing care to our fellow travellers!

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Bruce Kay on 07/28/2017 at 9:05 AM

Re: “Construction begins on long-awaited Spearhead Huts

Thanks Bruce for the opportunity to respond. No ....I am not calling for a mountain guide at every hut. Just someone suitably trained ie) 80 hr first aid and some meteorological background to be able to assist our volunteers in making appropriate risk assessments prior to engaging in a rescue.Why this has become a point of contention with a commercial proponent is beyond my comprehension.Dont we ALL want a first class mountain experience with appropriate safeguards. Whistler SAR Society is stepping up to the plate, we are simply asking for the same support that every other operator in the valley provides (willingly).

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Northair on 07/27/2017 at 10:08 PM

Re: “Construction begins on long-awaited Spearhead Huts

A mountain guide to be stationed in the hut on standby? Where is the world is there precedent for that? Is Brad suggesting that the Whistler backcountry is uniquely in need of a baby sitting service?

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Bruce Kay on 07/27/2017 at 8:32 AM

Re: “Unexpected species' extinction found in predator-prey study

This is really interesting - I am an avid math fan. However, differential equation is a big subject - which part of the diff eqn are we looking at here? Looking at a course example here are we looking at second order differential equations, or laplace transforms?

Posted by nono wa on 06/21/2017 at 10:52 AM

Re: “Bear killed after entering business through unlocked door

Aren't "lever-style handles" code now...or is that just Vancouver?

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Zinc64 on 06/15/2017 at 1:12 PM

Re: “The ongoing recovery of Howe Sound

This is potentially a great step forward in the ongoing recovery of Howe Sound and its preservation for all time even while allowing for human activity around it and a little on the water. It is a recognition of the treasure that we have and its value to the region and the world
Great work.
There are many of us in support of this initiative and hopefully it will gain momentum

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by John Phillips on 05/27/2017 at 6:16 AM

Re: “Snowpack changes signal potential danger

Unfortunately, judging from past stories in Lower Mainland media (including Pique) in which this "safety advocate" has weighed in, he has gained himself little credibility and sewn plenty of misplaced hysteria. Like the mountains that they are, things that are somewhat dangerous should remain so, and remain open after the more general mitigation takes place (of which Whistler Blackcomb does the best job in the world given the challenges that weather and the environment here pose). Take away all the risk and you take away everything that's great about this place, the sport, and the experience. Again, it's a high-mountain environment and whether we like it or not (I personally feel it's key to my enjoyment) that's what people come here to learn about and test themselves against. With so much altitudinal variation and complex terrain there will ALWAYS be inbound hazards that crop up unexpectedly. Also, let's not forget that terrain is RATED for a reason, that the hazards that exist out there in the mountain environment are dynamic and ongoing and cannot be erased or sanitized -- only educated about. Let's also not forget that people have a choice to ski/ride or not ski/ride certain areas under given hazard scenarios. When I choose to do so, I expect avalanches and other hazards are pontentially present and I govern myself and my movements accordingly.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Leslie Anthony on 04/13/2017 at 2:39 PM

Re: “'The national park system is under severe threat'

Mr. Barrett,

Please reconsider this article after some fact checking. It is largely untrue.

1. The truth is that the changes to the Lake Louise Ski Area leasehold will actually result in a return of land 600 hectares in size to protected wilderness. It is not an expansion rather a redistribution of leasehold - with a diminished footprint if any development is even approved in the future after full environmental assessments are conducted.

2. The recently released 'State of the Parks Report' by Parks Canada indicates that Banff National Park is in fact in better shape ecologically than it was 5 years ago when the last study was done. There is no evidence to show that it is 'under threat' as your title claims.

3. The proposed Icefields Trail will not 'cut through protected grizzly bear and caribou habitat in Jasper National Park' but would rather twin along the existing highway in a zone that is already federally approved for recreational use - aka a multi use trail that will allow environmentally friendly ways of accessing the park via hiking, biking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by AMPPE on 03/02/2017 at 11:03 AM

Re: “'The national park system is under severe threat'

Very inaccurate article. Double the capacity of Lake Louise resort? Misleading. It will actually be smaller, because they returned one part of the resort back to the Parks Canada in exchange to use West Bowl for skiing. So, the resort shrank. Author should get all the facts before making such sweeping claims!

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Jarka on 02/23/2017 at 6:27 PM

Re: “Bear destroyed after repeatedly breaking into garage

Today, you hear my Roar. Soon, you will hear ALL of us Roar. The globalist and tourist agenda in destroying our province and ALL its inhabitants. It's time to wake up, British Columbia.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Ted Ebahr on 11/25/2016 at 2:41 PM

Re: “Bear destroyed after repeatedly breaking into garage

I would like to clarify a point in this article and add further explanation. The article states: "But there should never be any reason to kill a bear, Dolson said". This is not what I intended. I do understand that there are circumstances in which a bear would have to be killed. I didn't think this was one of them. And I firmly believe that there are many preventative measures that can be taken before destruction is warranted in any case. I am attaching the Management Action Chart that the GBS Board and Scientific Advisors put together many years ago to determine the actions that should be taken. The chart was submitted to the COS for consideration, but their own matrix was not revised.

In this particular incident, the COS had a trap set for a week. According to the article, there was garbage in the garage. The burning question in my mind is: Why was a trap set to remove the bear instead of removing the attractant. We are only a few weeks away from hibernation.

The COS has the ability to issue a DWPO (Dangerous Wildlife Protection Order) which asks that people remove the attractant within a specified period of time. If the property owner fails to comply, they can be fined. This late in bear season, alternative measures would only have to have been taken for a couple of weeks until bears den. Before spring, a more permanent solution could be sought. As it stands now, the problem is still there and yet another bear could access the same garbage at any time and get killed for it. It's a viscous circle unless the root cause of the problem is resolved.

On a personal note, I just can't stand behind a policy that kills bears for the simple act of eating, a basic need we all have. Just can't wrap my head around that much lack of compassion and misunderstanding of an animal's needs. And no, I do not see this as a public safety issue worthy of killing the animal. Early preventative measures are what is called for. We need more effort put into prevention. More than just education. We need enforcement and practical application of deterrents (like electrifying the access point to the garage door) that prevent bears from re-enacting the same unacceptable behaviours over and over again. We don't kill our dogs for misbehaving, we teach them not to do it again.

Sylvia Dolson

16 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Sylvia Dolson on 11/24/2016 at 10:12 AM

Top Commenters

© 1994-2018 Pique Publishing Inc., Glacier Community Media

- Website powered by Foundation