Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters to the editor

Re: Oct. 11 letter by Mr. Bombois Instead of offering a better alternative to the current U.S. counter-attack or constructive criticism of U.S. foreign policy, Mr. Bombois chose to rage against the "evil" U.S. government.

Re: Oct. 11 letter by Mr. Bombois

Instead of offering a better alternative to the current U.S. counter-attack or constructive criticism of U.S. foreign policy, Mr. Bombois chose to rage against the "evil" U.S. government. Although I do believe he meant for his letter to be a wake-up call, I only saw yet another anti-American diatribe in the guise of reason and compassion.

Is the U.S. policy questionable or open to debate? Yes, certainly. To say the U.S. government is above reproach is foolish (or naive at best); however, to reduce the U.S. leaders to a bunch of evil men with evil intentions is equally foolish. To conclude the actions of the U.S. government are nothing more than the "pathetic ambitions of a few dominant men" or worse, to say U.S. policy is simply a "sick" one does not recognize or allow for the complexity of this present crisis. Furthermore, it negates any positive action taken in the past by the U.S. government (eg. Somalia and Bosnia, although even in those instances one could argue the U.S. operated with its best interests at heart as opposed to any "moral" reasons, but due to the time/space constraint, I won't touch that.)

At any rate, judging from his remarks, Mr. Bombois seems to pride himself in being a "clear-minded" thinker. To this I say: Please do not confuse uncompromising criticism and outright cynicism with critical thinking.

Mr. Bombois stated, "the American people are obviously excellent and worthy of admiration" and that his beef was with the "elite." If the poll results are true, the majority of Americans support the current course taken by the U.S. leaders; hence, if we follow Mr. Bombois' line of reasoning, the U.S. is simply a sick nation full of sick warmongers. I would laugh this off as ludicrous if it weren't for the fact that this sort of logic – and remarks such as: "...Sept. 11 is absolutely horrendous. Nonetheless it pales in comparison to the legacy of U.S. atrocities…" – could incite further prejudice and hatred towards the United States. Worse, it justifies/legitamizes the terrorist attack against "the most murderous regime in the history of our planet."

Even the U.S. media was attacked in his letter as a generator of lies and illusions. Has Mr. Bombois read any U.S. publications as of late? At least the American articles I've read have taken a responsible and balanced view; there is a lot of introspection and much debate over "correct" or alternative courses of action, as opposed to the expected rah-rah U.S. propaganda.

Mr. Bombois rants against the elite who possess money, power, and evil intentions. Curious how the Taliban (an oppressive government) and Osama bin Laden (a multi-millionaire who chooses to channel his money into acts of terror, as opposed to humanitarian aid) escaped his scrutiny and scorn.

I found his closing line equally curious. What pray tell did he mean when he wrote: "They will fail, we will win, and for that we can give thanks."?

Is it only me, or does this reek of elitism, the very thing Mr. Bombois claims to abhor?

Kimberly Ferry

Whistler

 

The fourth annual Lumpy’s Epic Trail Run was a "speedy" success with our first runner coming in at 39 minutes. We reaiseed more than $300 for the Signal Hill cross-country running team, thanks to the generosity of all the participants.

Thank you to Jeanette, the Pony staff, volunteers and runners both young and old.

And a special thanks to Mr. and Mrs. Leidal for their donation and for "being led" to our misplaced runner.

See you next year.

Jami Fidork

Pemberton

 

Over a year has passed since the Olympic bid committee held its first public meeting to get the feeling of support from within the community of Whistler. At that meeting, which was an informative session only, there was a request from the public to hold a referendum at a later date, but before the official bid for acceptance of using Whistler as an Olympic venue.

A non-elected committee is promoting the Olympics and their ideals, high and worthy as they may be. The undersigned would like to see democracy held higher.

We request that the RMOW hold a simple referendum "by mail" for all its taxpayers to easily respond to, with the question: "Do you want the Olympic venue here in Whistler, yes or no?" A majority is what is known as democracy, and all of us should be able to abide by that.

We expect the mayor and council will respond to this important request as soon as possible.

Bob Madiuk, Ed Hausckha, Tom Braidwood, Keith Sorensen, Art Den Duyf, Heidi MacPherson, Bob Switzer, Joel Thibeault, Peter Fluckiger, Brad Sills, Jack Mann, Richard Den Duyf, Paul Hauschka, Bob Calladine, Casey Niewerth, Sonya McCarthy, Linda McGaw, Dave Cathers, Vivian Jennings, Jet Johnson, Gordon Hall, Brian Walhovd, Ivan Johnson, Harry Measure

Whistler

 

Re: "A creek apart on the Rutherford" article which was published in the Oct. 9 edition of Pique.

I have been representing the Whitewater Kayaking Association of B.C. (WKABC) in discussions with Rutherford Creek Power Limited. After reading your article, I was disappointed that the issues were not more clearly identified, and that much of the information presented was quite inaccurate.

RCPL, on their own Web site state that the creek's natural flow will only exceed the capacity of the diversion 30 per cent of the time. That was for an 11 cubic metre per second (CMS) diversion (though now they wish to divert 13 CMS). Clearly this means that the other 70 per cent (or more now) of the time, the diversion will take the flows from the creek. This does not equate to the quote in your article: "We believe the project will leave a lot of water in the stream," he [Nick Andrews] says. "It will not have a substantial effect."

The Whitewater Kayaking Association of B.C. offered to let RCPL have the flows from Rutherford Creek for more than 93 per cent of the year – asking only to have natural flows, or near natural flows, for 6.6 per cent of the year. Yes, RCPL did offer to allow some time for natural flows – 0.7 per cent of the year. That is, at the very least, not at all reasonable.

The idea that "power generation will only take place during times of high-runoff levels in the spring and summer" is simply not true – and RCPL's own information clearly shows this.

Further, RCPL has done nothing to mitigate the impacts of the diversion on recreational river users, though they stated they will do so on their Web site, in press releases, and at meetings.

It is also of note that RCPL walked away from negotiations, after stating they were pleased with the flow regime offer made by the WKABC on Aug. 2, at a meeting with the regulatory agencies. RCPL was to respond by Aug. 10 but they did not, instead choosing to apply for their water licence while offering natural flows in the creek only 0.7 per cent of the year. The WKABC has asked both RCPL and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for further meetings. RCPL has not responded to our calls.

Above all, I am disappointed that the situation was portrayed as confrontational. The WKABC, and all of the paddlers have been nothing but totally reasonable in their dealings with RCPL. At no time did the WKABC make unreasonable demands, or ask that RCPL not build their project. We asked for very reasonable flow releases, and that RCPL realize that they are impacting a very valuable recreational resource in an area where tourism is a major economic contributor.

The WKABC does not wish to halt all hydro projects, to ask for no diversions, or to have natural flows every day – we recognize that some of these projects are required.

Your article did not portray this, and provided a lot of inaccurate information.

Stuart Smith

WKABC

 

Re: Parks to include more commercial recreation (Pique Newsmagazine, Oct. 12)

I’m shocked that the recreation officer in B.C. Parks’ Garibaldi-Sunshine Coast District is reportedly supporting more commercial recreation operations in Sea to Sky provincial parks.

Has B.C. Parks decided to ignore the strong recommendations against park commercialization made by the government-appointed Park Legacy Panel in 1999 and based on an 18-month public consultation process? Has B.C. Parks forgotten that hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money have been spent in unsuccessful resolution of conflicts related to commercial ski development in Cypress Provincial Park?

Commercial recreation operations should be limited to Crown land. B.C. Parks should stick to its mandate to protect the natural values and ecological integrity of our provincial parks and stay off the slippery slope of commercial operations within parks. And the public should maintain extreme vigilance during park management plan reviews.

Katharine Steig

West Vancouver