letters
myvalleysun.com
Scroll down for more letters
Deuling & Co
Lawyers
Joseph Deuling, LL.B
“Proudly serving Lumby & District”
Miller St. Lumby – 250-547-8827
Wildcraft Forest
October 17, 2013
Bullish on the real news in the Monashee
My Valley Sun
blog
index
Aerial spraying of Bt in the Upper Shuswap
Letter to the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations
Forest Health Program.
Below is the letter written to the Ministry of Forest by Bee SAFE and sent to Lorraine.Maclauchlan@gov.bc.ca
Tim.Ebata@gov.bc.ca
Bee S.A.F.E. is a movement that works to improve health, the environment and local economies by increasing access to food that is safe for the bees and for us. We operate a storefront office in downtown Lumby and our E-Newsletter reaches 340 supporters.
Bee SAFE is opposed to the Ministry's plan to spray 20,000 litres (4 litre per hectare over 5,000 hectares) of Foray 48B in the upper Shuswap Watershed for the following reasons:
1. Spraying is not an ecologically sound solution:
Infestations such as the Hemlock Looper, the Spruce budworm and the Pine Beetle are the result of out of control logging. When a forest becomes imbalanced, when certain insects or plants have lost their predators, targeting the insects usually results in more unpredictable chain reactions. As prize-winning author Andrew Nikiforuk states in his book Empire of the Beetle, “Misguided science, out-of-control logging, bad public policy, and a hundred years of fire suppression created a volatile geography that released the world's oldest forest manager from all natural constraints.”
The Journal of Pesticide Reform from McGill University states that “Large-scale applications of B.t. can have far reaching ecological impacts. B.t. can reduce dramatically the number and variety of moth and butterfly species, which in turn impacts birds and mammals that feed on caterpillars. In addition, a number of beneficial insects are adversely impacted by B.t.” Link to the Report
Infestations are the forest's way of coping with sick ecosystems and should be a warning to us. Sound solutions would aim at restoring the health of the forest by rebalancing the plant diversity and not having monoculture, which in turn would increase the numbers of predators such as birds and bats. Spraying substances that will further decimate their numbers is not a solution.
2. Foray 48B is not inoffensive to mammals, including humans:
As stated in the Journal of Pesticide Reform from McGill University referenced above: “Foray 48B is irritating to rabbit skin, and Foray 48B is moderately irritating to rabbits' eyes..... A memo from Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Foray 48B, states that "It is possible that someone that already has developed an allergy to one of the components of Foray 48B or has asthma . .. could be affected by exposure to small quantities of Foray 48B”.
The inert ingredients in BT products are potentially the most toxic components of the formulation. The little public information available about these trade-secret ingredients show that they can cause serious environmental and health problems such as severe corrosive damage to the eyes, skin, mucous membranes and digestive systems. Sulfuric acid, present in Foray 48B, can cause severe deep skin burns and permanent loss of vision.
Have the health effects and suffering that spraying Foray 48B will have on the birds, bats, bears and other mammals been considered by the Ministry? Has the Ministry considered replacing a pesticide spraying program by a health restoration program that would include increasing plant diversity as well as the numbers of birds and bats, and doing all that is necessary to increase their chance of survival?
We are concerned that plans to spray pesticides aerially instead of implementing a health restoration program may be motivated by economic factors rather than by ecological factors. Therefore we would like to know who are the individuals and companies that will benefit from this spray program. Please provide us with the names of the pesticide distributors, the pesticide makers, the consultants as well as helicopter pilots and any others who will receive payments from such a spray program.
We look forward to a prompt answer and hope to that the Ministry will consider replacing a pesticide spraying program by a forest health restoration program.
Bee SAFE founders:
Huguette Allen, Jane Emlyn, Carla Vierke.
Bill C-38 protest in Vernon
June 13, 2012
Area residents are invited to support a protest against Bill C-39 today.
If you are opposed to Bill C-38 because of its destruction of the natural world and it repression of free speech, please come to a rally in front of MP Colin Mayes' office tomorrow June 13th, at 3105 29 Street, Vernon at 5:30 PM
Learn more:
It is our hope that Mr. Mayes be one of 13 Conservative MP's needed to stop the Budget Bill (C-38) by voting against it Not all Conservative MP's are with Mr. Harper on this issue.
In the House of Commons Green Party leader Elizabeth May has asked Andrew Scheer, the Speaker of the House, to rule the Budget Bill C-38 out of order, because she claims it has too broad a scope to be acceptable as a budget. She has also put forward hundreds of amendments to the Bill. Watch her plea to the public at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8H4uXHBu8k.
The National Post thinks she's got a point, or rather several: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/11/kelly-mcparland-elizabeth-may-leads-commendable-effort-to-halt-tory-omnibus-juggernaut/
Read about the Speaker's decision at http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1209433--federal-budget-2012-voting-on-budget-goes-ahead-after-ruling-against-elizabeth-may?bn=1.
With as few as 13 Conservative MP's voting against the Bill, it would not pass. The rally is being held to demand that Mr. Mayes have the courage to oppose his Party in this matter.
Turn out to make this a forceful statement about the illegitimate omnibus nature of this year's Budget. Canadians don't agree with dismantling all environmental protection and silencing all who would speak for and stand for nature.
If you have any questions or concerns, or if you would like to be involved in a carpool to the event please call Dianne at 250-260-1474 or Priscilla who is helping at 250-547-9475
(30)
April 29, 2012
Dear MVS,
On Tuesday April 24 a catastrophic slope failure sent trees, rocks, and mud
downhill damaging 3 properties along Sugar Lake Road belonging to Joel and Leanne Hrizcu, Pat Cowden, Steve and Judy Harris.
Landslides occurred within and directly below a cutting permit logged less than 3 months ago by Tolko Industries. Members of the Cherryville Water Stewards hiked up the eroded gully on Wednesday morning. They found that drainage patterns had been altered by industrial activity. This resulted in water flowing overland through the forest saturating thin soils over impervious bedrock on slopes greater than 80% grade.
Cherryville community representatives including Eugene Foisy met with Paul Ross RPF, and Tom Jones RFT of Tolko Industries. Peter Weisinger P. Geo, a geotechnical specialist from Salmon Arm accompanied the Tolko Industries staff.
Thanks to Argo staff for restoring access to residents beyond the slide by cleaning the mud off Sugar Lake road and clearing the plugged ditches and culverts.
Tolko Industries has not accepted responsibility for these results. The area is still highly unstable and further slides are expected this spring until mitigation and restoration activities are completed by the party responsible.
Cherryville Water Stewards
(30)
Growing jobs, increasing demand for B.C. food products
By Don McRae – BC Minister of Agriculture
April 4, 2012
Dear MVS,
Producing quality, great-tasting food products is an integral part of British Columbia’s economy. That is why the Province recently launched “BC Agrifoods: A Strategy for Growth” as part of the BC Jobs Plan, to ensure food production in our province continues to grow and support valuable jobs and healthy communities.
The agrifoods sector was selected as part of the BC Jobs Plan because it has great potential for growth, and offers exciting opportunities to inject new dollars into the B.C. economy. The agrifood strategy will guide the further development of B.C.’s agrifoods sector, with the goal to increase industry revenues from the current $10.5 billion a year to $14 billion annually by 2017.
Early in the new year, I met with over two dozen producers representing all sectors within the larger agrifood industry to discuss a plan for the sector. I wanted to hear from them first-hand because it was essential this strategy be developed from the ground up. The men and women who produce and process our foods and beverages are the experts, and so it was essential their thoughts and perspectives be reflected in the plan.
Together we looked at various opportunities and challenges confronting our industry. This includes a heightened appreciation for buying local, a growing global desire for safe, secure food products, increasing demands on our land base as well as the need to maintain a competitive business environment so producers can generate jobs and wealth.
The resulting five-year strategy lays out a coherent roadmap to move British Columbia’s agrifood industry to a new level of prosperity. Stakeholders agree the measures we’re undertaking make the target of increasing annual revenues by $3.5 billion by 2017 realistic and attainable. To achieve this we will place special emphasis on promoting B.C.’s high-quality and high-value products, take specific actions to expand both domestic and international markets and bring about new policies to enhance industry competitiveness.
The plan clearly differentiates our government’s approach to agriculture from the opposition. While we embrace forward-thinking, innovative approaches to growing the industry, the NDP are either focused on the rear-view mirror with yesterday’s ideas or are advocating for policies that are already in place.
When the NDP say they’ll have public institutions purchase locally grown foods they’re embarrassingly unaware that fresh B.C. products are already served in schools and hospitals. For example, contracted food providers for Health Authorities in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley are already using local food sources like chickens, eggs, beef, and in-season produce. Meanwhile our government’s School Fruit and Vegetable Nutritional Program is providing nutritious servings to over 400,000 students while supporting local food producers.
In terms of marketing, the NDP want to bring back BuyBC and its multi-million dollar cost to taxpayers. While this was an effective program a generation ago, our government’s approach is to move to a contemporary marketing model. We know the demographic that does most of the grocery shopping also has the highest social media use. That’s why we’ve introduced FoodsBC, using social media to more effectively promote buying local. Facebook and Twitter sites are up and running, while mobile applications, a market-exchange tool and dedicated website are on the way. In addition we’re working with industry on other shared, more traditional marketing plans that have a fresh, dynamic brand.
Over the next five years, the BC Agrifoods Strategy for Growth and the BC Jobs Plan will develop and expand our domestic and international markets. We will build on our reputation for producing safe, high-quality, high-value products to increase our competitiveness worldwide. This will generate economic growth for our agrifoods families and for the people of B.C.
Perhaps most importantly, “BC Agrifoods: A Strategy for Growth” is a living document that allows us to adapt to changing conditions or emerging trends. I will be revisiting the strategy with industry representatives this fall to ensure we are on the right track, and if revisions or alterations to our collective plan are required then they will be made jointly.
- Don McRae – BC Minister of Agriculture(30)
Pesticide Free in Lumby
Submitted by Lumby resident Jane Emlyn
January 15, 2012
On Dec 19, 2011, I gave a presentation to the Mayor and Council of Lumby asking them to pass a bylaw banning the non-essential use of cosmetic pesticides on public and private land in Lumby. The Mayor and Council refused to pass the bylaw, even after I provided them with the information stating that pesticides (which include herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and rodenticides) are toxic, harmful and are highly discouraged by many major health organizations.
As reported by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, National University of Cordoba, “ The first recommendation is for the public and society to listen, recognize and acknowledge what health and science experts state- toxic pesticides are poisonous, and they are making us sick. The diseases that we are exposed to everyday are not random, and they are caused by the spraying of these pesticides.”
These exact pesticides are found on your lawn, in Lumby’s recreational parks, in fields, in gardens and on the sides of the road. If that fact is not frightening enough, twenty-two major organizations including the Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, Lung Association of BC and David Suzuki Foundation support a province-wide ban on non essential-pesticides.
To date, 39 communities in BC have a bylaw banning the use of cosmetic pesticides. 65% of all Canadians are protected from toxic pesticides. Here in Lumby there is no such freedom. It would be different if we could protect ourselves from these toxins, but because the toxins are air and water borne contaminates, it is impossible to protect our families and our environment if the pesticides are actively being sprayed.
BC is considering placing a province wide ban following Nova Scotia, PEI, Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta and Quebec but the BC government moves very slowly and could be pressured by large chemical companies to enact a very weak ban.
Of course, there is always opposition when regulations are put in place. There are arguments that businesses will lose because of this, but it has been demonstrated unequivocally that sales of alternative products increase and surpass the sales of pesticides where such bans are in place. There are people working for businesses in Lumby and the village who do not want to use these chemicals but they have no choice and are often afraid to say so.
Mayor Acton and most of the Council have ignored me. It is criminal that their lack of interest makes it necessary for concerned citizens to take issues like this upon themselves.
What is even more absurd is that this bylaw would benefit everyone. Lumby Council has responded by saying that they cannot place such a ban because they feel it would be a liability and fear the possibility of being sued. This is absolutely false, as every municipality has the right to ban pesticide use. The Council also questions how a community enforces a ban like this, yet those 39 communities across BC that I have mentioned previous seem to have no problem, and I have contacted each and every one of them with my inquiries. Additionally, the Mayor and the Council believe that our community is already a village divided and this would divide us further. Please ask yourself: do we want a community that is healthy, safe, and attractive to young families to move to? I am sure the answer is yes, so how would this divide us more?
I implore you to take a stand against the harmful effects of toxins in our community, please email the Mayor and Council at, mayoracton@lumby.ca, lorideann@shaw.ca, lumbyrandal@gmail.com, nhome@mofp.ca, pjfisher@shaw.ca. Or phone the village office and educate yourself on alternatives to pesticides; make it clear that you support the ban of non-essential pesticide use on public and private land in Lumby, and that you support a healthy community and a clean environment.
Sincerely,
Jane Emlyn
Defending Rural Lumby and Outlying Areas
November 13, 2011
My husband and I attended the All Candidates Forum on Mon. Nov. 7, 2011, and were, for the most part, quite impressed. We were happy to see so many candidates running and believed Lumby was once again heading in a positive and progressive direction. It was refreshing to see a few young people, along with members who have lived in the community for some time, running for council, and also three candidates running for Mayor.
I can't recall the last time so many people were willing to commit - what an exciting time for Lumby! Each presented their intentions in a respectful manner, and we were proud to see the democratic process of expressing one's thoughts, beliefs, and visions for the future of Lumby done in a professional fashion. Unfortunately, our bubble burst when the concerns of Lumby versus "Outlying Areas" appeared to overshadow the entire forum. We also felt the prison issue clearly was a deciding factor in this sad situation. This issue is not dead and won't be until government has made a decision and the new council is formed.
My husband was born and raised in this community on Whitevale Road, I worked in the school system, our children were educated through the Elementary and the High School, and never in my 37 years of living here have I felt a division between Lumby and the "Outlying Areas D and E" until now. The wedge which has been slowly festering appears more evident than ever before.
Lumby is considered a "Rural Community" surrounded by "Areas D and E", which includes Whitevale, Mabel Lake, Creighton Valley, Trinity Valley, Cherryville, Sugar Lake etc. Possibly some of the newer residents of Lumby are not aware of how significant Rural Lumby is in supporting the Village. If it wasn't for many of the people living in what a few Lumby residents have begun to call the "Rural Area", Lumby would never have become the successful little village we all call home.
The North Okanagan Regional District (NORD) represents Areas D and E, the rural area of Lumby, and is instrumental in financially supporting parks and recreational facilities, the library and our two schools within the village. Only 25% of our students in our schools live right in Lumby, 75% come from the rural areas. Also 61% of the Lumby’s budget is funded through NORD (rural areas D and E). It was noted at the Forum, Kevin Acton stated, that he had ‘secured $600,000.00 toward renovating the pool, arena, and curling rink.’ A portion of the money is coming from NORD and the remainder through a Provincial Grant I believe called “Towns for Tomorrow, council applied for.
If NORD (rural Areas D & E) was taken out of the equation, where would the Village of Lumby be?
The votes for council come from residents who live within the village limits. The residents don't need to own property, but are required to have resided within the village boundaries for at least 30 days. Distance from the Village boundaries should not define who can run. The distance from the Villas to the center of Lumby as well as the distance from the furthest new home in the Mountainview subdivision is approximately the same distance from one of the mayoralty candidate’s home to the center of Lumby, but they are not Lumby residents and may not cast their vote.
Take a look at our local businesses - approximately 60% are owned and operated by families living in "Areas D and E". Yet, it is our understanding that unless these people own their property in which they conduct their business, they do not have a vote, and that businesses can be assessed higher than village residences, yet if owned by a corporation, a vote is not allowed.
The population of Lumby is a smaller number than the outlying areas and therefore the people living outside the village should have some say in what is going on, as the decisions made will effect them as well. Areas D and E also pay taxes but are responsible for their own utilities (water, sewer, etc.). It has been stated "we need a council that will keep its house in shape and have true representation in our village". In our minds, true representation includes Lumby and Areas D and E. We encourage interested residents of Lumby to look up the stats on the overspending of Council (www.cfib.ca - the B.C. Municipal Spending Watch) of 136.22% a few years back.
Also, we suggest reading some of the Minutes from Council Meetings which may shed some light on a few of the issues creating concerns. Lumby is unique, resilient, and has vast resources to draw upon. Together, as an informed community, which should include Lumby and "Areas D and E", we can make a difference.
Cheryl Altwasser
Editors Note:
To view the B.C. Municipal Spending Watch document referred to in this letter you can cownload the pdf document on the linke below. Lumby appears on the chart located on the last two pages of the document.
(30)
For the Record:
The Jail: Lumby Lions Club Resignation
The following letter was submitted to us by Lorelei Beattie who resigned from the Lumby Lion's May 17, 2011. this letter appeared in the local media and was also sent to MLA Eric Foster. In coming days we'll be talking to Lorelei.
May 17, 2011. this letter appeared in the local media and was also sent to MLA Eric Foster. In coming days we'll be talking to Lorelei.Three years ago I joined the Lumby Lions Club because I wanted to support my community. This year I was nominated and accepted as 2011 – 2012 President of the lions club. Lumby Lions have done wonderful things for the community and it was great to be a part of that. The Lions is a great organization and the members are to be praised for volunteering their time. However last May 2010 Mayor Kevin Acton, also a Lion member came to the meeting and presented information for a Jail, or correction facility as he called it. I read where Mayor Acton said, I went to Lions Club last night and we discussed it there and the general feed back was very positive. It will be interesting to see how Lumby feels about this. It’s certainly not a done deal. I don’t remember the positive feed back, and as I recall there was only about half the members present.
Kevin Acton also states to CFJC TV that he admits proceeding with an application for the jail could divide the region but he says he must reflect the wishes of voters within his community. I have also seen a video of a council meeting where Cliff Wedgewood quotes Mayor Acton “What is done in area D is their affair not ours, like wise in Lumby what we do is our affair not theirs.”
I reside in area D, I am a concerned citizen or for any of you following the jail news, have been referred to as cave people. Having area D votes thrown out of the opinion poll was a slap in the face. So now I’m wondering why would I, being from area D want to support a community that blatantly does not want our support?
The issue is not whether the jail comes to Lumby or not. It is the way area D has been outcast. Being the larger population, area D supports the village of Lumby a great deal. People say, don’t take it personally, how else would I take it. I am a person and I live in area D.
Sadly, I don’t have the heart or desire to volunteer my time to the Lumby village, so as of today I am resigning as a Lions member and future President.
Yours truly,
Lion Lorelei Beattie
Voice of Reason
July 7, 2011
Has the prison debate in Lumby caused some people to loose their perspective? We all live in a democracy which allows us a right to hold different opinions.
It is not OK to publicly shame and bully people who have an opposing view. Whether that is done in council chambers, newspapers, or coffee shops.
We will all be here after the prison conflict is over. We need voices of reason to point to a positive future. We encourage the greater community to have some Lumby pride and rise above the name calling and bullying that some citizens are currently engaged in.
Jo Anne and Paul Fisher
Lumby
June 21, 2011
Dear MVS,
I was stunned to read that Lockheed Martin were collecting our census information for Uncle Sam!
Really MVS, come on, this is the stuff of tabloid journalism.
Just because Stats Can is using software written by Lockheed Martin does not mean that Stats Can has been taken over by the dark forces south of the border. No matter what software Stats Can uses, it would be running on thousands of machines using Microsoft Windows.
Microsoft, now there's a fine Canadian company, not too large, not involved in US defense contracting, not subject to the US data laws!
If you believe that, I've got a prison to sell you in Lumby.
This is not about whether its American software or Stats Canada, it's about our entire digital culture.
Statistical information is a legitimate need for a functioning democratic society. I believe Stats Canada has a lot of dedicated people working to the best of their ability to gather that information and use it only for the purposes for which it was collected.
We as a society need to figure out how to live with digital technology. We need to be involved in the workings of our governments to demand responsible purchasing from ethical suppliers.
We need governments to address the threats to Canadians from the use of digital technology, advocating for the people they represent, not the corporations. It is up to us as Canadians to get involved and figure it out. The answer is not to withdraw into our own little Libertarian cocoons and deny any cooperation with society.
Come on people. Be there! Get involved!
Gordon Judd
Lumby
(30)
Correctional Facility: Area D Director Writes Residents
To: Area “D” Residents
As the representative for Electoral Area “D”, I felt that it was important for my constituents to have a forum to express their opinion on the proposed correctional facility.
As such, the Electoral Area “D” Opinion Poll was conducted on April 30, 2011.
The decision on whether or not to pursue the correctional facility rested with Village of Lumby Council. I attended the May 2, 2011 meeting of Lumby Council and presented the Area “D” Opinion Poll 66% majority “no” vote, of which I strongly supported, as well as copies of written submissions that had been received. This information was provided to Lumby Council for their consideration, but they were not bound by the results.
Following Lumby Council’s decision to pursue the correctional facility, I forwarded a letter to MLA Eric Foster to advise of the majority “no” vote from Area “D” and to seek his support in lobbying Shirley Bond, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General Ministry, to consider the wishes of rural Lumby.
The decision now rests with the Ministry to review and consider proposals submitted by communities throughout the Province. The Minister has advised that she plans to make an announcement by mid June.
I trust this provides you with information on the process to date and outlines the actions that I have taken to ensure that the majority “no” vote of the residents of Area “D” Rural Lumby has been heard.
Please contact me if you wish to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Director Rick Fairbairn
Electoral Area “D”
Online Community News for Lumby, Cherryville, Rural Coldstream and Highway 6
We update this website on a regular basis. We are eager to receive your news, events, advertising and letters by email at: mediaservices@uniserve.com
