Site C

[maryjane48]

your bclibs said the peace river vally in bc is the most important agricultural area of bc . i guess clark eats alot of radish now ? people can plainly see the facts for themselves . 110 million in food produced in peace river vally every year. until the dams built then it will be less .

clear choice bclibs = made up facts


the ndp are committed to true green energy and keeping british columbias food areas above water

[Smurf]

They are grasping at straws because that is all they have to turn to.They have yet to produce a factual argument against anything you have presented hobbyguy. It must be depressing for them.

[Smurf]

maryjane48 wrote:

read the article again . does the peace vally end at bc ? i didnt think so

Does site C affect more than 1 % of the Peace Valley arable land. I doubt it, from the information I have seen not even close. And most of it is not class 1,2 or even 3.

[maryjane48]

yea it is . if a tree grows there its atleast class 2 . class three and above is desert and concrete

[Dizzy1]

My viewpoint is not political; it's environmental.

Yeah, I've read your posts.

[Jflem1983]

yea it is . if a tree grows there its atleast class 2 . class three and above is desert and concrete

So that makes pallisers triangle at least class 2 . Look up pallisers triangle before commenting

[lasnomadas]

Thank you.If you take the time to go to youtube and watch a 1976 video about the Site C dam, you're probably not a BC Liberal.

[Urban Cowboy]

And MJ, site C will only affect the flooded and flood zone impacted lands if you want to stretch it. Talking about the rest of the Peace district is totally irrelevant.

Grasping at straws to oppose site C just undermines the detractors. But that's all they have.

But this is the tactic that they use. In this instance mj finds it conducive to generating greater dramatic effect by using the stats of a whole region and making it sound as if it's all getting flooded.

Then when one of her buddies makes an argument regarding the double digit unemployment rates, it's suddenly one little sector that gets used and the bigger picture ignored.

They're dramatic effect fact finders you might say, and inconsistencies in how they present their arguments matter not, just as long as the drama can continue.

Thank goodness most folk are intelligent enough not to fall for this juvenile tactic.

[Smurf]

maryjane48 wrote:

yea it is . if a tree grows there its atleast class 2 . class three and above is desert and concrete

Do you even check before you write something like it is the truth? A simple google would tell you immediately that you are not even close to the truth.

In BC agricultural capability ratings and limitations are assessed through a classification system known
as the "Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia"1
. The classification system
describes seven land capability classes for agriculture (Classes 1 to 7). Class 1 land has minimal
limitations when associated with the most amenable climates in the Province. In Class 2 to Class 5 lands
the limitations increase. Class 6 lands have limitations that preclude arable agricultural activities yet are
capable of sustaining native and/or perennial uncultivated agriculture. Class 7 lands have limitations that
preclude all arable and natural grazing agricultural systems, regardless of the climate. Increasingly, new
innovations in drainage and irrigation, tillage, nutrient replenishment (whether organic or inorganic), pest
management, as well as closed environmental systems, allow for agricultural production on agricultural
land once deemed too limited or unsuited for producing specific products. The recognition of 'arable'
agricultural activities is also significant in that Class 6 and 7 lands may still be agriculturally productive,
where topography and climate allows, and where the agricultural activities are dedicated to closed
environmental systems (i.e. greenhouses).

CLASS 3 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS LIMITATIONS THAT REQUIRE MODERATELY
INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT PRACTISES OR MODERATELY RESTRICT THE
RANGE OF CROPS, OR BOTH.
The limitations are more severe than for Class 2 land and management practises are more difficult to
apply and maintain. The limitations may restrict the choice of suitable crops or affect one or more of the
following practises: timing and ease of tillage, planting and harvesting, and methods of soil conservation.

http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/assets/alc/*bleep* ... c_2013.pdf

Seems to me that class three will grow a lot more than concrete LOL. But even considering these facts the land that is being flooded is a minuscule portion of the arable land in the Peace and would never feed 1,000,000 people or even close.

[Urban Cowboy]

The 110 million in food produced is a statistic for the whole Peace, whereas hobbyguy already did the research, and what that revealed was the actual area being flooded, generates 200,000 dollars in revenue.

That figure doesn't sound very impressive though, hence their use of 110 million, in the hopes they can generate some outrage, by tricking some into believing, they might starve for lack of that food source.

That's no less deplorable of a tactic, than the very politicians that they so hate, tend to engage in. There's a term for that, what was it again.....................................

[lasnomadas]

Perhaps Hobbyguy and the rest of the pro-Site C commenters would be wiser to actually visit the site instead of relying on biased research. However, before they spend their time and money to travel to the Peace, they could watch the 1976 youtube video I suggested to them last night. Actually, there are several good videos of the area, plus a very informative book called "The Peace In Peril" that everyone who's interested in some insight into this project should study before making a decision on whether they're pro or con.

Oh, who am I kidding? The BC Liberal cheerleaders would never believe anything that would refute their heroes' plan to get this dam thing past the point of no return before May 9. They've already lost that battle anyway. Just read a report that says BC Hydro (we) will have only spent $1.8 Billion by the end of June. IMO, it's much better to bite the bullet for a couple of billion than to let this white elephant proceed until the cost reaches $17+ Billion, which as history proves, with the inevitable cost overruns, we will be leaving for our great-grandchildren. Aren't they going to be pleased to know what dinosaurs their great-grandparents were?

[alfred2]

Perhaps Hobbyguy and the rest of the pro-Site C commenters would be wiser to actually visit the site instead of relying on biased research. However, before they spend their time and money to travel to the Peace, they could watch the 1976 youtube video I suggested to them last night. Actually, there are several good videos of the area, plus a very informative book called "The Peace In Peril" that everyone who's interested in some insight into this project should study before making a decision on whether they're pro or con.

Oh, who am I kidding? The BC Liberal cheerleaders would never believe anything that would refute their heroes' plan to get this dam thing past the point of no return before May 9. They've already lost that battle anyway. Just read a report that says BC Hydro (we) will have only spent $1.8 Billion by the end of June. IMO, it's much better to bite the bullet for a couple of billion than to let this white elephant proceed until the cost reaches $17+ Billion, which as history proves, with the inevitable cost overruns, we will be leaving for our great-grandchildren. Aren't they going to be pleased to know what dinosaurs their great-grandparents were?

have you visited the site with an open mind?

[Smurf]

I don't have to visit it, I know roughly what actual arable acres will be flooded. I know our home farm in Saskatchewan was about 2000 acres and I can easily visualize what is at the peace as I have been in the area but never specifically took note of each bit of riverside property that will be flooded. There is no way in this world it will feed 1,000,000 or even close to 50,000 people. That has been blown totally out of proportion.

[hobbyguy]

Actually, I have been to Ft. St. John a few times. Have a relative up there that owns a small acreage and a business. Dang long drive!

[Smurf]

lasnomadas wrote:
My viewpoint is not political; it's environmental.

That is the difference in us. My viewpoint is also not political. IT is about balancing what is best for the environment, for the province of BC and for ALL the people of BC for decades to come. Nothing in this world is perfect, everything has good and bad, but It has been proven that that is site C dam and that is why I support it 100%.