So, a ski hill on a glacier?

[Homeownertoo]

We could do with a little less hyperbole and more information on this forum. For example, let's recognize that this development doesn't ravage (take your pick) the last remaining wilderness in BC, the last untouched valley in BC, the last pristine watershed in BC, the last stand of old-growth forest in BC, the last remaining grizzly habitat in BC, the last refuge in BC for the spotted owl or bald eagle or whales.

The fact is, BC's black bear population has been on a steadily upward trend for the past 140 years http://www.bearsinbc.com/pages/01black/01population.html, not to mention more than 16,000 grizzlies in the province http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/gbcs/2008_Grizzly_Population_Estimate_final.pdf. We have no shortage of coyotes, wolves, deer, elk or other critters, many of which are now finding their way into large urban areas, a trend unheard of when I was growing up.

Nor are people lacking in wilderness recreational opportunities. I've enjoyed but a tiny fraction of what there is in this province, but even that tiny fraction is much more than most people visit in a lifetime. So let's can the hysteria and look at this development for what it is, not the nightmare that exists only in some people's fevered imaginations.

[The Green Barbarian]

So let's can the hysteria and look at this development for what it is, not the nightmare that exists only in some people's fevered imaginations.

It was my understanding that you can't call yourself an environmentalist in BC unless you relied on hysteria and a fevered imagination to oppose any and all developments in this province. Are you saying that there is another way to behave and still be concerned about the environment? Interesting....

[Glacier]

The fact is, BC's black bear population has been on a steadily upward trend for the past 140 years, not to mention more than 16,000 grizzlies in the province. We have no shortage of coyotes, wolves, deer, elk or other critters, many of which are now finding their way into large urban areas, a trend unheard of when I was growing up.

Ironically, the one place that is seeing a extirpation of wildlife are the National Parks in the Kootenays. The government is spending oodles of your money to try and save the mountain caribou by transporting in ones from the north along with an expensive zoological breeding program. Sadly, it's destined to fail because the Rocky Mountain caribou decimation is the result of too many wolves, bears, and cougars that can't be hunted.

P.S, my mom had lived in the same area for 40 years and never saw grizzly, but now she packs a gun when every she walks in the woods because the woods are crawling with them. Same goes with her friends. A couple years ago on one of her daily walks, three full grown grizzlies charged her at full speed. If she didn't have a gun, she'd likely be dead today.

ETA: if the Jumbo glacier is indeed the last remaining wilderness, I propose a solution. Shut down Big White to make up for the ecological footprint. Or maybe turn Kitsilano back into the wilderness that Nature intended for it to be.

[Corneliousrooster]

ETA: if the Jumbo glacier is indeed the last remaining wilderness, I propose a solution. Shut down Big White to make up for the ecological footprint. Or maybe turn Kitsilano back into the wilderness that Nature intended for it to be.

Or maybe we could be satisfied with the plethora we already have and reflect on the mistakes and damages we have caused already and LEARN from them...... or yeah, your idea......

As long as man continues trying to control and "balance" nature, the more problems we are going to have with nature..... humans are slow learners by nature......

[Corneliousrooster]

We have no shortage of coyotes, wolves, deer, elk or other critters, many of which are now finding their way into large urban areas, a trend unheard of when I was growing up.

You didn't notice the urban areas moving into the natural areas? What an astute observation (or lack there of).

[Corneliousrooster]

Nor are people lacking in wilderness recreational opportunities. I've enjoyed but a tiny fraction of what there is in this province, but even that tiny fraction is much more than most people visit in a lifetime.

So what is your argument for the Glacier resort then? By your own statement above it sounds like it is not a needed endeavor - even you that has seen more than most have only seen a fraction yet you cheerlead for something the locals of the area want nothing to do with .........

Gotta love the spoiled entitlement of the first world......

[Homeownertoo]

You didn't notice the urban areas moving into the natural areas? What an astute observation (or lack there of).

This is a stunningly dumb statement. Urban areas take up a tiny fraction of the province. To try to pretend that animals are moving into them because they lack habitat is absurd. They are moving in because their own populations have grown, and outgrown their existing habitats adjacent to urban areas.

[Homeownertoo]

So what is your argument for the Glacier resort then? By your own statement above it sounds like it is not a needed endeavor - even you that has seen more than most have only seen a fraction yet you cheerlead for something the locals of the area want nothing to do with .........

Gotta love the spoiled entitlement of the first world......

Wrong again. You're getting quite good at misinterpreting things. I was talking about wilderness, not developed land. Re-read my post if you don't want to read it properly first time around.

[Corneliousrooster]

Wrong again. You're getting quite good at misinterpreting things. I was talking about wilderness, not developed land. Re-read my post if you don't want to read it properly first time around.

Oh - so we are lacking in developed land recreational opportunities .... Still not buying your argument.

This is a stunningly dumb statement. Urban areas take up a tiny fraction of the province. To try to pretend that animals are moving into them because they lack habitat is absurd. They are moving in because their own populations have grown, and outgrown their existing habitats adjacent to urban areas.

You made a comment about a "trend unheard of when you were growing up". Now compare the urban crawl from when you were growing up until now. This, combined with mans interference trying miserably at controlling certain wildlife populations (without the foresight to see how this is going to mutate the natural populations to favor one species over another, thus creating boom and bust populations), is what is creating problems in the urban areas.

Do you think what was unheard of in your formative years is now just the natural course of bears and coyotes? Further displacement and disruption to currently natural areas is not going to compound the problem? You've got er all figured out don't ya homeowner

[Homeownertoo]

Oh - so we are lacking in developed land recreational opportunities .... Still not buying your argument.

Once again, I never said that. Re-read my posting for a second time. Anyway, it's not for me or you to decided an 'appropriate' level of recreational opportunities. The market can decide that quite well without ideological propensities getting in the way.

You made a comment about a "trend unheard of when you were growing up". Now compare the urban crawl from when you were growing up until now. This, combined with mans interference trying miserably at controlling certain wildlife populations (without the foresight to see how this is going to mutate the natural populations to favor one species over another, thus creating boom and bust populations), is what is creating problems in the urban areas.

Do you think what was unheard of in your formative years is now just the natural course of bears and coyotes? Further displacement and disruption to currently natural areas is not going to compound the problem? You've got er all figured out don't ya homeowner

Burnaby is no larger in area than it was when I was growing up. My sister's place in North Van is no further up the mountainside today than it was 25 years ago. Yet both are experiencing an influx of wildlife that did not happen back then.

As far as "mans interference trying miserably at controlling certain wildlife populations", I hardly see how that even relates to anything I talked about. And no, I don't see the expansion of wildlife habitats as a natural course. It is probably the result of a dramatic reduction in hunting pressure on certain populations due to animal huggers gaining the upper hand in wildlife management policies over this period, and the consequent wildlife population explosion.

If it seems I have it all figured out, it's only because you have nothing figured out.

[Corneliousrooster]

If it seems I have it all figured out, it's only because you have nothing figured out.

You give yourself far to much credit.....

Take a look at a map of city boundaries from 50 years ago - then compare to now. I know you think burnaby problems have nothing to do with abbotsford problems or chilliwack problems or whistler problems, but they all share the same corner of the province and all impacts affect the "untouched" in the middle. The increased populations, the increased traffic, the increased picking out 1 species to irradicate all contribute to the lack of balance that we experience now (as opposed to your childhood where you yourself claim to not recall these sorts of issues.

Burnaby is no bigger today, but how about all the places I listed above? How about surrey? Where did that wildlife go? Each of and of themselves might not appear to be a big enough issue for you to take notice but to ignore the sum of the parts just shines a light on the level of tunnel vision you take to the whole issue.

The market should NEVER be deciding how our natural resources are consumed and utilized. There should be a buffer of common sense before the market gets to decide anything. (and I fully realize that is not how things currently operate).

[Glacier]

Burnaby is no larger in area than it was when I was growing up. My sister's place in North Van is no further up the mountainside today than it was 25 years ago. Yet both are experiencing an influx of wildlife that did not happen back then.

My mom lives in a remote community that has not grown in 40 years, and yet the number of bears around her house has gone up dramatically. Her nearest neighbour is 2 km away just like it was 40 years ago. Obviously she is encroaching on their territory!

[Homeownertoo]

The point I started from was that wildlife populations have been growing. It doesn't matter that urban areas have grown as well since they still represent a small slice of the province and, evidently, are irrelevant to the status of wildlife. What has this got to do with a ski hill on a glacier? Very little, except that all the development you worry about has not devastated wildlife in BC. And another ski hill is not the hill they will, finally, all expire on. There is no evidence that it will be in any way decisively or even significantly detrimental to wildlife. If anything, the evidence suggests development is beneficial to wildlife preservation. I won't make that argument here. I'm just asking, what is the basis for your complaint about this ski hill?

[GordonH]

Look at it this way, if all that money goes into this project. Than this happens to the Glacier.

Everyone except maybe the investors will have a good one of these.

Never know could happen.

[Homeownertoo]

The market should NEVER be deciding how our natural resources are consumed and utilized. There should be a buffer of common sense before the market gets to decide anything. (and I fully realize that is not how things currently operate).

Let me get this right. I should not be able to buy a litre of milk without a gov't bureaucrat deciding whether it is right for society? That is what you state, isn't it.

My friend, you are in way over your head. Let me guess. You are a proud progressive.