Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters To The Editor

I would like to thank Nick Davies for his professional maturity and responsibility, in ringing the alarm bell on council's appalling actions towards Alluradirect.com this past week. Davies' concern is well-placed.

I would like to thank Nick Davies for his professional maturity and responsibility, in ringing the alarm bell on council's appalling actions towards Alluradirect.com this past week. Davies' concern is well-placed. It shows he is thinking with the clarity and objectivity of a good legal mind, and trying to protect the reputation and liability of Whistler in the process. We are fortunate to have him on council. Without his input, it appears that the rest of council would have continued to act like a pack of wild dogs on the hunt, oblivious or indifferent to its legal responsibilities to act in an unbiased and fair manner. Davies is the only one who is looking at the bigger picture, in terms of the legal implications of council's conduct in this "show cause" hearing.

Of course, if there was a legal challenge of council's decision relating to Alluradirect.com, it would not hold up to legal scrutiny. You don't have to be a lawyer to figure that one out. So why is council going through this charade?

Davies was correct in saying that the sanctions approved and imposed by council, on the recommendation of Bill Barratt, would not comply with the law as required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Council's decision would not even pass muster under provincial legislation and related court decision precedents, dealing with the laws governing proper conduct of quasi-judicial bodies, eg. municipal governments, boards, tribunals, etc. There is always a high risk that when non-legally trained people, eg. elected representatives or employees, "sit in judgement" of others, and impose sanctions that have a serious impact on the person or company concerned, serious abuse of the defendant's civil and legal rights could occur. If it could be shown that the process was flawed, the decision of council could be easily overturned, especially based on last week's council decision on Alluradirect.com. In that scenario, Whistler could be accountable and liable in law, to compensate the party who suffered the injustice. This could result in massive financial losses to Whistler, the amount depending on the circumstances. It could also result in a massive loss of Whistler's reputation. Considering that this "show cause" hearing was the first for Whistler, it was not a positive or encouraging example of how Whistler is dealing with its moral and legal responsibilities to the community, and those who support the community.

In last week's hearing, it was the case of the horse before the cart, as Whistler failed to follow common sense by getting a written legal opinion in advance. This legal opinion should be requested by council, and received and reviewed by council. Davies should have input on the content of the questions to be asked of Whistler's legal counsel, as a civil servant would not ask the right questions, the tough questions, or enough questions. The taxpayers' elected council has the mandate to make responsible decisions and be accountable for them. It is irresponsible to delegate that quasi-judicial review and decision-making to an employee of city hall.

Ed Caldwell

Whistler

 

I am writing to you following the show cause hearing on June 17 against Allura.

I left the meeting somewhat concerned that this action had even come about. Having further checked into the legal aspect I am more concerned.

I think council wants to think long and hard about what they are doing, that they are acting within the law and in the best interest of the community as a whole, not just using this as an easy way to get at the owners who are renting their properties supposedly illegally.

This is not the way to deal with the illegal rental by owners of properties not zoned for nightly rentals. Allura is a very professionally run and well set up company that brings thousands of visitors to Whistler. It has policies that have been put in place by their company lawyer. One of these states clearly that they accept no responsibility for the legal status of the properties listed. They are, essentially, an Internet company that gives owners an opportunity to advertise their properties on a Web site created by the software they provide. They are not a property management company. These sites are created by each individual owner, who states his/her own policies and requirements through various templates. All bookings come directly to the owners; in fact everything is done by the owners directly on line, except for those who do not possess their own payments which is, as I understand it, done through a secure bank line.

It is a totally automated, autonomous environment that has been set up by Allura to require minimum staffing or input from them. They have no idea what bookings are made or for how long, as the requests go through to the owner. It is what it states: "an owner direct site."

This means it would be virtually impossible for Allura, without taking on a huge amount of extra staff and changing the whole concept of the company, to monitor bookings and determine if they are legal or not. Remember, they are also acting within the law of the land. What council has done is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any action should be taken against each individual property owner, so they have a chance to fight their case.

The responsibility for control of illegal nightly rentals lies solely at the door of the municipality. It is up to the municipality to enforce its bylaws (if indeed they are enforceable) – but against the people who break them directly, not against third parties.

It is also not the right message to be sending out to a business that has done so much in bringing tourists to Whistler and who has made it easy for the owners of the many legally zoned properties to rent their properties. Allura’s very success goes to prove that it is what both owners and visitors to Whistler want.

I also feel that Sue Chappel is not only highly a intelligent and responsible person but is also very committed to Whistler, to its locals, to sustainability, affordability, levels of service, excellence and guest experience.

With regard to the other speakers on Monday morning, both have vested interests and their grievances could not I felt be attributed to Allura.

For small businesses it is an increasingly difficult marketplace, especially on the Web, to get noticed. A friend of mine recently purchased at Cedar Ridge, listed it with Allura and already has three large bookings. To penalize Allura for that is to penalize a legal TA owner.

As for other property management companies, none that I spoke to had a grievance against Allura, other than that they were a competitor – something normal and I would say healthy in the commercial world.

I do agree that the renting public is confused and concerned and I too have had many requests as to whether a property is TA zoned or not. This is not Allura’s fault but further indication that the municipality must do something and soon.

The whole TA zoning issue is one that I personally think needs revisiting, as it is clearly not working in a town with the dearth of TA zoned chalet accommodation. What is going to happen if we get to the Olympics and every available bed is required not just for officials but the viewing public and we do not have enough? Are these so-called illegal renters going to be asked to make their chalets available? But that, together with the continuing unaffordability of this town by locals, is another issue, and one I plan to take up with council.

Whistler needs room for everyone to function and disharmony in a small community can be very destructive. But more than anything Whistler needs to hold on to its locals and long-term residents and must do what it can to stop them being forced to leave through old age, affordability, social problems or whatever reason other than their own wish to leave. They are Whistler’s soul

Susie Goodall

Whistler

 

Invitation to visit Piccolo/Flute

Whistler-Blackcomb would like to acknowledge everyone who has or is submitting letters concerning the Piccolo/Flute Boundary changes. Each person will be receiving a phone call inviting them to join us for a field trip to the area once the snow is melted in August. No construction will take place in the Piccolo/Flute area this summer.

We also invite anyone in our community who has concerns about the boundary adjustments to join us. The reconnaissance will include walking along the original and current boundary alignments. Much has been stated about the lack of public consultation and environmental concerns. We would like our community to get a "ground level, factual, see it for your own eyes" representation on the changes. It is important our community gets the facts behind the changes. We would appreciate your participation.

Please call 604-938-7220 should you wish to join us.

Arthur DeJong

Mountain Planning and Environmental Resource Manager

Whistler-Blackcomb

 

EPCOR, the developers of the Miller Creek Power project have manifestly turned their backs on the citizens of the Pemberton Valley. What was characterized as a new proposal was actually a statement by EPCOR that they intend to proceed with the project, despite the many irregularities and changes to the initial project. "That's how business works" was how David Morrow assessed the situation, in effect flipping the bird to a unanimously opposed community.

This was to be the Alberta energy giant's showcase project for "green power," the criteria of which includes social responsibility and rigorous environmental safeguards. They clearly did not do their homework in the social responsibility category; public consultation very obviously nothing more than lip service. There are serious environmental concerns with the project that were not anticipated at the outset, as they were not in the initial proposal to the community. The socio-economic report upon which approval was granted specifically states that there would be no road to the north arm of Miller Creek. There is now an extensive road to the north arm, which ends up in the fragile alpine environment. It is to be used to construct a dam, which was also not part of the original agreement. Mr. Morrow indicated that the reservoir would be about half the size of the gymnasium we were sitting in, with a 20-foot face. As I was leaving, an EPCOR employee stopped me and suggested that that was incorrect, it will be more like the size of a football field.

How much more misrepresentation are we to put up with? As this is the first of literally dozens of proposed "green' projects," I would urge one and all to inform yourselves. Despite what industry's various spin-doctors will try and portray, this is anything but green power. The devastation to the Miller Creek watershed is as disgusting as EPCOR and BC Hydros' treatment of our community.

Patrick Meagher

Pemberton Meadows

 

Now that the media circus surrounding the orphaned bear cub from Pemberton has abated, I wish to draw attention to certain realities that may have been lost among the romantic images. If nothing else, if enough is learned from this experience, then perhaps some good will come of it.

The story is tragic, but not because the bear was euthanised. The tragedy was that a train hit the bear in the first place. The tragedy was that someone saw cause to drive his mother away from him after he was injured. During the last 48 hours of its life, lethal injection was the only thing that cub experienced that truly was in his best interest. I completely agree with Michael Allen’s opinion that the bear never should have been taken in. His single greatest chance of survival remained with his mother.

Blue-eyed and fuzzy or not, bear cubs are wild animals. Consequently, being handled by members of an unfamiliar species is an extremely stressful experience for them. Imagine being abducted by a serial killer. Imagine the trepidation – wondering when you’ll finally be killed; that’s what this cub’s last days were like. I’m sure the motives of whomever pulled him from the tracks were sparked by good intentions, but they were fuelled by ignorance. If rumours are to be believed, then at least one individual attempted to stroke the bear before it was brought to the hospital. To continue the analogy, imagine being abducted by a serial killer who wants to assuage your fears by caressing you. (In a similar vein, I can’t even tell you how many "orphaned" fawns I have seen, fawns that would have otherwise been fine but now that they have been handled by people, will slowly die of starvation because their mothers will no longer accept them.)

Rehabilitation works well for some species with certain conditions. I’ve heard that some U.S. Bear Rehab facilities have a good success record. I have no idea what the success rate of the Smithers facility is. Consequently, due to a lack of information, I can offer no opinion on the feasibility of bear rehab in general. However, I do know a great deal about limb amputations and the thought of turning a three-legged bear out into the wild does not sit well. This is not a 60-pound dog eating kibble from a bowl. This bear could grow to weigh 500 pounds, 300 pounds of which would be born on his remaining front limb. With it, he must defend his territory, roam, hunt etc. Even if his fragile growth plates aren’t crushed by the additional workload brought on by the amputation (which would result in a deformed limb), the chance of him developing premature arthritis is quite high. Turned loose, I can see him being driven from territory to territory, poorly socialised, unable to defend an area in which he can feed, slowly starving to death. In the media, it would look great, " Baby Bear Saved From Death, Given Surgery And Returned To Wild !" We could really pat ourselves on the back over that one, especially if we never see the end result.

Rehabilitation does not end when an animal is returned to the wild. In order for rehab to be successful, it must be demonstrated that released animals continue to thrive on their own. In order to demonstrate this, some sort of long-term monitoring system is necessary. Expensive or not, it is essential. To release animals (e.g. three legged bears with extensive human contact) into the wild and not check to see whether they thrived or suffered, is both irresponsible and potentially cruel. I genuinely hope that the J.J. Whistler Bear Society seriously re-thinks their opposition to the monitoring of rehabilitated bears.

In short, several lessons can be learned from the past week. For the general public, the walk away message is: Never create an orphan. Juvenile bears, injured or not, stand the best chance of survival when left with their mothers. For those of us who worked with the cub, there are still several questions that never were properly answered. How successful is bear rehabilitation, both internationally and within B.C.? Based on the experience of others, which injuries will likely result in a successful rehabilitation? Which ones will not? If we arm ourselves with answers to the above questions, then next time we can make a timely decision based on accurate information, a decision that might actually benefit the bear. Perhaps then, we can do some good.

David Lane D.V.M.

Pemberton

 

It has been a few tense days in our community. We have been dealing with the RCMP, Conservation Officers and the way they are dealing with one of the neighbourhood bears. This particular bear has been deemed an aggressive bear and a danger to our community. The way this bear reached this state is unacceptable and infuriating. This bear has been fed human food and as a result the bear will be killed.

The Conservation Officers and ministry policies have decided that it cannot be relocated because it has been exposed to human food. I am furious about having to watch the bear wander around the trap knowing that if he goes inside he will be dead. We need to make our voices heard as a means to stop more bears in our communities being killed. It is never the bear's wrongdoing: it is ignorant human behaviour that results in their death.

I am also disgusted by the way the RCMP officers addressed our questions and concerns. We were treated with immense disrespect and basically dismissed. Their behaviour only added to the sadness of the situation. I would like to thank the Conservation Officer who actually took the time to talk and inform us about the situation.

Julie Cummings

Whistler

 

Two bears were killed in Whistler by Conservation Officers on June 25th. One of the bears was killed on Panorama Ridge after being caught in a snare. According to neighbours, the bear was being hand-fed by a resident in the area. Hand-feeding bears is a totally unacceptable practice and does not fit with our community’s desire to live in harmony with its bears. Under current Ministry policy hand-fed bears will be killed.

The J.J. Whistler Bear Society believes that this incident was a ‘people’ problem and not a ‘bear’ problem. These people broke the law and they should be dealt with accordingly. The bear did nothing wrong. No animal should be killed for eating.

We also have serious concerns with snares being set in residential areas where children play and pets wander. Luckily, this time, there were no children or pets injured as a result of being caught in a snare.

The Ministry of WLAP policy states that food-conditioned bears will be destroyed. Although we believe whole-heartedly that any bear that poses a threat to human safety must be destroyed, we also believe that bears that are simply exhibiting undesirable behaviour can be dealt with in a non-lethal way. There is no scientific or anecdotal evidence to show that food-conditioning leads to bear attacks on humans.

We can use negative conditioning – rubber bullets and noise deterrents combined with our human dominance – to teach bears not to approach humans and human dwellings. This is a program that has been proven effective. It is important to note however, that negative conditioning must significantly outweigh the positive food rewards bears are accessing. Otherwise, the program won’t work!

Bears are adaptable and tolerant of people. They are capable of sharing their habitat and living in harmony with us. Are we capable of co-existing with bears? People and wildlife officials need to understand the bear’s true nature and behavioural traits, so that their reaction to bears is not paralyzed by their own misunderstanding and fears. JJWBS hosts Bear Smart Presentations every Wednesday night at Millennium Place, 7:30-9 p.m. I urge you to come and learn more about bears.

The second bear was killed near Alta Lake for allegedly breaking into cabins and eating non-natural foods. This bear had been previously relocated from Mount Currie to the Ashlu (near Squamish) last September after killing livestock.

Sylvia Dolson

Executive Director,

J.J. Whistler Bear Society

Canadian Bear Alliance

 

I watched them kill a bear today.

We first heard the screams at 6:30 this morning. I went outside and there it was: 20 feet away, caught and bleeding in a leg trap that wouldn't let go. The roaring sounds were somewhere between defiant, angry, and afraid. The conservation officer took his time preparing the darts that would put the bear to sleep. I guess when it comes to shooting a bear you don't want to make mistakes.

One shot, another shot, the bear is finally quiet.

He tells me "Just so you know, this one isn't being re-located, and you can thank your neighbour for hand feeding this one for the last two years."

Thank you neighbour.

One more shot to the back of the head, its over.

Thank you neighbour.

Peter Elzinga

Whistler

 

Re: "Tough decision to euthanize splits bear lovers," Pique Newsmagazine, June 21, 2002

J.J. would have lived if his right paw had been run over by a train in Ontario rather than British Columbia. J.J. would have been cared for by a veterinarian, rehabbed, tagged and released within a year. It's also possible that he would have had medical care and returned to his mother.

In Ontario, a cub's paw was amputated up to his shoulder as gangrene had set in. If that little guy could be set free, there's no reason why J.J. couldn't have been – except government policy!

The B.C. government has decided that a cub must be able to put weight on all four feet before they can be rehabbed and released. J.J. might or might not have been able to do this after his operation. To have him suffer only to be euthanized after surgery didn't seem right.

B.C. Ministry staff think that bears can't be successfully introduced into the wild if they've had "extensive human contact." The Ministry should know that over 300 black bear cubs have been rehabbed and released without becoming a "nuisance" or injuring humans. All these cubs spent about a year with a human caregiver and never became a problem. Bears can tell the difference between a human helping them and one they don't know. The Ministry has no scientific evidence to the contrary.

And, they even demanded a $10,000 bond to cover two years of radio collaring and monitoring. In Ontario, cubs are simply tagged and released.

B.C. residents need to let The Hon. Joyce Murray (250-387-1187) know that they want a bear rehab friendly policy like Ontario's so that we never have another situation like J.J.'s.

Ainslie Willock, Director

Canadians for Bears

Toronto