Valley Trail courtesy
Let me paint a picture for you — a gorgeous Tuesday afternoon, walking along the Valley Trail with my four-legged companion. Oh, what a beautiful town this is in the summer, and who wouldn't want to enjoy a bike ride along these shared pedestrian and bike trails.
But since when did the courtesy of announcing "on your left" depart this respectful town? With seven bikes coming towards me, and two bikes coming up behind me, when did it become expected that I, as the pedestrian, get into the bushes to make space for all you cyclists to use the trail, and get past me all at once?
I like my shoulders thank you, and even more so, I like my four-legged companion, and would like to keep them all.
Please remember these valley trails are shared, and please remember to respect other people using them.
Samantha Royle
Whistler
BBQ, sunshine and playgrounds!
At the Canadian National BBQ Championships last weekend thousands of people were treated to award-winning BBQ flavours and great entertainment.
And throughout this fun-filled weekend, enough funds were raised to help the team at Playground Builders build another playground in Afghanistan!
Thank you to the 26 competitive teams who managed to feed thousands, while, at the same time, also competing for the Canadian National BBQ Championship. That's no easy task! For each tasty BBQ sample they provided to the public, a dollar was donated to Playground Builders.
Thank you to Whistler Blackcomb and Dusty's Bar & Grill, who go above and beyond to create a wonderful event that, for years, has always supported a local charity. Paul Street, Mike Varrin and Josh Kearns and their wealth of experience and generosity have created a fantastic fundraising event.
Another big thank you to Scotiabank Whistler. With their unwavering commitment to the many charities in our community, the Scotiabank staff not only came out both days to volunteer for Playground Builders, the Scotiabank Whistler branch matched each donation to a total of $5,000!
The entire Playground Builders team is so very grateful for the ongoing support of the entire Whistler community.
The Canadian National BBQ Champs happens every year at Dusty's on the August long weekend and we hope to see you there next year!
Playground Builders has built 134 playgrounds for children living in some of the world's most difficult areas. For more information about Playground Builders and how to donate please visit us at www.PlaygroundBuilders.org.
Kelly Hand
Executive director, Olive Branch Playground Builders Foundation
Significance of the Sikh turban
For the first time, 40 riders from the Sikh Motorcycle Club of Canada participated in 56th Squamish Days Loggers Parade 2013, which was held on Aug. 4, in downtown Squamish.
Large numbers of people including children were present along the parade route and warmly welcomed and cheered them on. All riders were well dressed and had beautiful turbans on their heads. They also distributed many pamphlets to let the other communities know about the importance of the Sikh turban and philosophy of Sikhism.
Sikhs can be easily identified from amongst the crowds of hundreds and thousands. Some Sikhs wearing traditional dress give the impression of a respectable monarch. Throughout the world one can observe Sikh men, women and children, dressed in fine clothes and colourful turbans. Today, the very existence of turban reminds one of the Sikh nation.
The turban is an essential part of a Sikh's dress — it is obligatory for a Sikh. Although initiation of the Khalsa dates back to the last days of the 17th century, the turban for a Sikh is as old as the religion itself. Right from Guru Nanak (1469-1539), the founder of Sikh religion, the turban has been an inseparable part of the being of a Sikh.
Though the turban is a religious obligation for the Sikhs, it is also an old costume of the people of Asia. It has been a part of the attire of the saints and sages in the Sikh community. It has not yet been established whether the Dastaar (turban) of a Sikh and turban of the Middle East (Dulband), have a common origin. In Persian turban is "Dulband" and in Turkish it is "Tulband." Turkish "Tulband" became "Turbante" in Italian, "Turbant" in French and "Turban" in English. The Sikhs appreciate the use of the term Dastaar, instead of "Turban."
Europe knew the turban even prior to the 15th century, as can be seen in an oil painting by Jan Van Eyck the caption of which says, "a man in turban" dated c.1433 (This painting has been preserved in the National Gallery at London). For a Sikh "Dastaar" (turban) is not a headgear but it is a part and parcel of his religion. It is representative of the religious identity and national cohesion for the Sikh Nation.
About five metres of fine cotton mulin cloth is usually used for a Sikh's "Dastaar." The width of this cloth is about one and quarter metres. Some variations do exit and some people use seven metres of slightly dense cotton (voile). A small "Dastaar" about one and a half to two metres in length and smaller width, is also worn under the "Dastaar." This is known as" Keski."
The turban has significance not only in the Sikh religion, but also in the Sikh way of life. After the death of the head of a family, the eldest son is presented a turban, symbolizing the honour and dignity of the family, as well as the responsibilities of the family.
On the occasion of marriage, the fathers or close relatives of the bride and the groom, present turbans to each other as a symbol of shared social esteem and dignity.
In the Sikh community good friends of long standing present turbans to each other implying the message that they will be brothers-in-religion, henceforth. Among some Sikh families, "Dastaat-bandi" (tying of a turban) of the children is observed as a special ceremony.
Dastaar is a part and parcel of Sikhism and several idioms have become associated with this. Most of these denote great humiliation or disrespect, when a turban is disturbed or knocked-off. Removing a Sikh's turban constitutes a grave offence. A Sikh, guilty of disrespect towards another Sikh's turban, is not allowed to join the Sikh ceremonies; unless he has expressly apologized and has carried out the punishment prescribed for the offence.
In several countries, the Sikh had to fight several times to retain their right to wear turbans.
Amrinder Singh Ghangas
Garibaldi Highlands
Need for IPP planning overdue
I am concerned that the dialogue around independent power projects (IPPs) tends to lean toward an all-or-nothing debate. My impression is that there are a lot of people who are not so polarized on the IPP question; people who think that some streams might be OK for run-of-river power, while some should be left alone. In other words, not every feasible stream should have an IPP.
I understand the dangers posed by carbon emissions and climate change, and note that locally we already contribute to renewable energy (dams in the Cheakamus, Bridge and Seton Valleys plus over a dozen IPPs built or under construction) and could contribute more. But I would bet that Nigel Protter of the BC Sustainable Energy Association is way out of sync with pulse of our communities with his quote regarding IPPs in Nicola Jones's recent piece in the Pique: "It's not a case of either/or. We need everything we can get" (Pique Aug.1, 2013 "A River Runs Through It").
The question of additional IPPs may be academic without further Energy Purchase Agreements coming out of BC Hydro — but that debate won't be decided here in Sea to Sky. The debate that should occur locally is one which focuses on which streams are appropriate for further development and which are not.
The idea of a local IPP plan isn't new. In October 2004 during the Sea to Sky Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) almost all stakeholders — including representatives of tourism, agriculture, forestry, mining, motorized recreation, non-motorized recreation, front country tourism, backcountry tourism, fish and wildlife, conservation and environment — did not oppose to the idea of IPPs, but called for a plan for IPPs and their related infrastructure (e.g. power lines and roads). The notable missing signatory of that letter was the representative of the Independent Power Producers Association of BC (Clean Energy BC's — CEBC— earlier incarnation). Unfortunately the government of the day chose not to include that broadly supported recommendation in the final Sea to Sky LRMP document.
An IPP plan can and should be high level and consider social, economic and environmental aspects. It should be completed as quickly as possible to give industry the certainty they require. It must also seriously look at cumulative impacts but need not be lengthy or too costly.
One overarching mandate of the S2S LRMP, still unrealized, is to recover grizzly bears regionally. Thus IPP planning must also be underpinned by grizzly bear recovery objectives and the latest science. Given the very high regional importance of the Upper Lillooet Valley to our threatened local grizzly bear populations, IPP planning could initially focus on the upper Lillooet and key adjacent valleys it links to, for example the Ryan and Upper Bridge watersheds.
Neither side of the IPP debate may like a renewed call for an IPP plan. The IPP industry may continue to try to deflect the conversation by arguing that each potential IPP should be allowed to go through the permitting and/or environmental assessment process even if they are located in the most controversial or sensitive areas; or that a number of IPPs will naturally fall off the drawing board if they are not economically viable.
Some of Clean Energy BC's members may fear that a plan would cause their "staked" stream to fall off the drawing board but perhaps that's where the industry's bigger players like Innergex can step up to show leadership to proactively get the social licence they seek.
There are real concerns around IPPs in southwest B.C. and their incremental harm to our threatened local grizzly bear populations and other important values. In his Aug. 1 "Letter to the Editor" in Pique Mr. (Paul) Kariya (executive director CEBC) wrote: "Clean energy developers and users will be able to explain to their own children and grandchildren what they actually did to help steer us away from fossil fuel sources and climate change..."
I would counter that I hope that clean energy developers will be able to explain to their children and grandchildren how they also willingly engaged in regional IPP and grizzly bear planning so that wildlife like grizzly bears thrive and that we steered away from fossil fuel use — not, that in their rush to cash in on selling renewable power to the grid, they contributed to the loss of grizzly bears from our landscape.
Johnny Mikes
Whistler
Keep it wild
Many years ago as a child I read a book called The Mystery of Monster Lake, which was set in the wilderness at the upper reaches of the river feeding Harrison Lake. It painted a picture of true wilderness, places untouched and unexplored. I always loved the imagery it portrayed and I always hoped I could visit that lost and forgotten land hidden from time.
Sadly, that land is now in the center of a controversy over "run of river" power on the Upper Lillooet River.
I am no stranger to this business, and have worked in the field for many years, but only on small, virtually zero impact projects, and only on sites that had depended on fossil fuelled generators.
I know of Ledcor and Innergex, the joint venture called Creek Power Inc. that seeks to build the controversial river diversion project on the Upper Lillooet River. They want this project, as it is their business. They are not "bad guys," they just want their jobs and a good project, and the people putting up the money want a good return on it. That is all fair play.
But it comes at a great cost to all of us, in the way of lost wilderness, guaranteed higher electricity rates, lost control of our resources, and increased industrialization in the quiet farm lands of Pemberton Valley that many residents oppose. They live there to get away from urban expansion and industrial environments. Now, so much is threatened by these projects, and we have much more to loose than we do to gain.
You have heard it all I'm sure. But just from the economics alone, it is bad business to proceed. Green energy is not cheap energy. I know, I am in the field. And usually the almighty dollar is the leading reason to push these things through.
But money is not everything, and money can be had in many different ways. Why not have a brainstorming committee that can really think outside the box on ways to make B.C. prosper, without ripping it to shreds or selling off our precious homegrown industries. Gee wiz, if I were starting over, I would think that could be the greatest and most challenging job a person could ever have.
Whatever way you slice it, building many small IPP hydro projects on our remote and wild rivers is not the answer to our problems.
Eventually, the energy will be gobbled up by an increasing population and more industry. There is no stopping it on the course we are going. We need aggressive energy and wildlife conservation together with planned communities and developments, without having to exploit every last mineral resource, forest or river.
I still have that book, and I would like to read it again, knowing that the Monster of Mystery Lake is still alive and well. Please, stop the needless development on the Upper Lillooet River. It should be kept wild for the sake of all that we stand to loose.
Peter Talbot
Pitt Meadows
Not a mere 'speed bump'
Thanks to the Pique for covering this important issue (Pique, "A River Runs Through It," Aug.1).
It is a shame that the article used the term "run-of-river" to describe river diversion projects, which is a more accurate term. Water can be diverted from rivers for several kilometres. For example, Innergex/Creek Power Inc.'s river diversion project on the Upper Lillooet River will divert water through a 2.5 km long tunnel (5m diameter) and a 1.4 km long buried high-pressure steel penstock according to the project's Environmental Assessment report.
The article could have provided more in-depth analysis about the genesis of private river diversion projects in B.C. The BC Liberals promoted them, as the surplus power was intended to be exported California, and to privatize power. California, however, has determined that B.C.'s river diversion projects are not green (and will not pay a premium for the power). Instead, as stated in the article, BC Hydro has to pay three to four times the market rate to buy power from independent power producers (IPPs) for power that B.C. does not need. B.C. has at least a five to 10-year energy surplus.
The article lacked analysis of the controversial Bill 30, which undemocratically removed power from local authorities having a say over the approval and review process of river diversion projects. The article dismissed the SLRD's recent refusal to issue temporary use permits (TUPs) for Innergex/Creek Power Inc.'s Upper Lillooet River Hydro Project (ULRHP) as a mere "speed bump." This six to three vote against the TUPs, however, is a victory for democracy. Finally, one level of government actually listened to constituents' concerns, which is very rare in today's Canada. The provincial government should respect this democratic decision.
The article failed to mention that contrary to the BC Liberals' initial promise that river diversion projects would not be built in fish-bearing rivers or creeks. Research by Watershed Watch Salmon Society revealed that at least 72 per cent of river diversion projects in B.C. are in fish-bearing streams. This could have a disastrous effect on our wild salmon. Norway, which gets 99 per cent of its power from hydropower, has lost 19 salmon species and research shows that hydropower has had a greater negative impact on wild salmon than even fish farms.
It would have been appropriate to highlight the urgent need for energy conservation and how legal reform, for example, of the BC Building Code, could help achieve significant energy conservation. IPPs are obviously not interested in energy conservation, as that would affect their bottom line. This begs the question why Nigel Protter, the director of the BC Sustainable Energy Association, is such an IPP supporter and so dismissive of solar power. Given that Germany can produce five per cent of its national power thanks to solar energy then B.C. could also benefit from this technology. It would create more long-term jobs than river diversion projects!
Jordan Sturdy's dismissal of a regional planning process for river diversion process highlights his limited understanding of these projects and the BC Liberal perspective. He should step down as mayor of Pemberton to prevent such an obvious conflict of interest. He could also learn a lesson in democracy from the SLRD.
Contrary to what was reported in the article, at least three river diversion projects were turned down largely thanks to public opposition, including a proposed river diversion project on Ryan River in Pemberton Valley! The other two projects I am aware of are the Upper Pitt River Water Power Project and the Howser/Glacier project in the Kootenays. There may be others but the media generally does a poor job in covering the IPP issues. The fact that not more river diversion projects have been turned down speaks to the flawed public consultation process under the pro-proponent Environmental Assessment Act, the BC Liberals' "Clean Energy" policy, the passing of Bill 30, and the cozy relationship between BC Liberals and IPPs.
For now the public has won the battle over Pemberton Creek and we will continue to fight Innergex/Creek Power Inc.'s ULRHP, which should never have been approved by the provincial government given the project's negative impacts on the threatened grizzly bear populations and other species at risk as evidenced by Freedom of Information documents. Government biologists forcefully and repeatedly stated that these impacts cannot be mitigated but were largely ignored by the Environmental Assessment Office.
Innergex/Creek Power Inc. should face the facts and recognize that there is very little support for the ULRHP. Hundreds of locals and visitors, including numerous Lil'wat First Nations, want to "Keep Pemberton Wild."
Add your voice by sending a letter to Premier Christy Clark calling for an immediate moratorium on all river diversion projects, including the ULRHP:
http://wildernesscommittee.org/write_wild_keep_the_upper_lillooet_river_wild!
Louise Taylor
Pemberton
