Anti Deer Cull groups need to come clean



Devin Kazakoff protesting in Cranbrook 2013

Devin Kazakoff spokesperson for the BC Deer Protection Society (BCDPS) and the Invermere Deer Protection Society (IDPS), has been charged with mischief, and disguising the face with intent to commit an offence.  Kazakoff and co accused Lucky Gene Sikora were alleged to have tampered with the deer traps in Kimberley on Feb 27^th. Kazakoff and Sikora are enabled by multiple anti deer cull groups across BC and a registered political party in Ontario the Animal Alliance and Environmental Voters Party. Animal Alliance is run from Ontario by Liz White, the BCDPS is headed by Colleen Bailey of Cranbrook of which Kazakoff is a spokesperson, Kazakoff and Vince Zurbriggen are on record as the founders of the IDPS. These activists all share a common goal under the BC Deer Protection Coalition (BCDPC) giving themselves internal support and a larger donation base.

BCDPS spokesperson Kazakoff has been decrying the secrecy of councils by day while under cover of darkness he was allegedly wearing a mask to tamper with traps. Neither Liz White of the Animal Alliance or Coleen Bailey, head of the BCDPS have made any official statement to the media about the arrest of the BCDPS spokespersons.  Is the BCDPS shifting gears and adopting a Greenpeace style of activism?

The BCDPS, BCDPC and the Animal Alliance have had ample time to make a public statement about Kazakoff and Sikora. Ms. White and Bailey need to be reminded that it is their spokesperson that is facing serious criminal charges, have they nothing to say?  Colleen Bailey and Liz White have taken the time to post comments or articles on various media sources since the arrest but neither makes any mention of Kazakoff’s arrest.  They need to publically condemn what Kazakoff’s is alleged to have done.  Failure to do so could send these various deer protection groups down the road of eco-activism; embracing criminal activity to achieve their goals.

Is this really want  Colleen Bailey and Liz White want?

David Suzuki is no saint to me

Markham Hislop beaconnews.ca | June 22, 2013  

• 0
  inShare

 

David Suzuki column offensive and ill-timed

Albertans are spitting mad at David Suzuki. The famous environmentalist and CBC host wrote a column yesterday tying Alberta flooding, in which three died, to his favourite hobby horse, climate change. “Too soon, Dave?” was a common comment heard in Tim Hortons across the province yesterday, uttered by Albertans reeling from the worst flooding in recent memory. Over 75,000 people evacuated from Calgary, much of Canmore and High River completely under water with local infrastructure destroyed or severely damaged,

Too soon, indeed.

 

As thousands of Albertans huddled in evacuation centres and contemplated the loss of their homes and belongings, the last thing they needed to hear was David Suzuki using their pain as a pretext to preach about climate change. “Can we say the recent flooding and extreme weather in Southern Alberta and B.C. were caused by global warming? Maybe not, but we can say we should expect more of the same – and worse if we don’t do something to get our emissions under control. As many scientists warn, climate change isn’t coming; it’s here,” he wrote.

 

Suzuki’s use of so much personal tragedy as a platform to promote his political agenda is repugnant. Am I surprised? No, because I have a personal history with Suzuki that offers a bit of insight into his judgment on these kinds of issues.

 

It was 1992 and I had just set myself up as a one-man public relations agency in Prince Alberta, Sask. My phone rang and it was a colleague asking me if I would help out the Meadow Lake Tribal Council with a sticky issue in their forestry operations. MLTC had recently bought a big sawmill in Meadow Lake. As part of the deal, the Tribal Council received a forestry licence that included re-foresting obligations. Some of the First Nations band members objected to the MLTC forestry company’s harvesting and silviculture methods, and had occupied a logging road, refusing to let workers and equipment onto the harvesting area.

 

Acting upon bad advice from their lawyer and a big Vancouver PR firm, the MLTC chief and council kept their head down and refused to talk to media. Well, after a couple of weeks the story was completely out of control and was leading national newscasts. Naturally, David Suzuki injected himself into the controversy.  He flew out to Saskatchewan, met with the protesting elders, and dominated the news cycle thereafter. Desperate to turn things around, MLTC asked me to help. I asked them one question: Do you have good stories to tell?

 

This was the height of the “BC is the Brazil of the North” campaigns (funny how BC is now a model of great forestry practices, eh?) and the Oka standoff was still fresh in everyone’s memory. The last thing I wanted was to be helping bonafide land rapers, even if they were First Nations. Our silviculture practices are world-class, we plant more than we harvest, and we do everything we can to protect the land, I was told. Their foresters backed up the story with data and examples. Soon MLTC was telling its story to Canadians via the national media. And a good story it was, too.

 

As part of my efforts, I reached out to David Suzuki. He needs the forestry data and information as much as the media, I thought. We had a cordial discussion, I sent him the info and we agreed to meet at his next press conference at the logging road blockade. I showed up a few days later, the lone company representative amongst a large group of protestors, a number of them armed young men with covered faces a la the Oka images we all remember so well. Suzuki began the press conference. Now that the had the other side’s information, with plenty of evidence about their responsible harvesting and silviculture practices, I thought he would moderate his tone and the protest would head in a different direction. Talk about naive.

 

He launched into a blistering attack on MLTC, completely ignoring the evidence that didn’t jibe with his conclusions. Then he did something I’ll never forget. He announced that Markham Hislop, a representative of MLTC, was in the crowd and pointed me out. Immediately, no doubt choreographed ahead of time, a number of large and armed men surrounded me, leaning in in a very threatening manner. They remained that way for the remainder of the press conference. Some of them muttered very nasty things in my ear.

Intimidating?  You bet. I was shaking when I finally got back to the car.

 

You’ll forgive me if I don’t think of Suzuki as Saint David. The man has a nasty, ruthless streak and he’s willing to take advantage of others if it furthers his greater cause. One, incidentally, I usually have a lot of sympathy for. So, the willingness of David Suzuki to exploit the suffering of Albertans came as no surprise to me. Perhaps he even thought of it as a form of cosmic revenge, since Alberta is the home of the Canadian oil and gas industry, and Calgary is the Houston of Canada. Whatever the case, his column was in very poor taste. And Albertans were not amused.

 

An apology from Suzuki is in order.

Americans meddling again in the Flathead

Wildsight, Sierra Club, Y2Y and CPAW’s (environmental NGO’s) are losing credibility with their continued opposition to resource extraction in BC and Alberta. The call to ban new coal mines and place a moratorium on expanding existing mines is part of the Y2Y strategy. The ultimate goal is to remove at least 50% of the land base from Yellowstone to Yukon and lock it away from human interference and habitation. This report is on the heels of another study,  Safe Havens and Safe Passages, produced by environmentalists from Montana. These two reports want the same end; a national park and land locked away from development. These groups are not accountable to anyone but their US funders who provide millions to push an anti-fossil fuel campaign hidden in environmental campaigns.

 

 

The environmental NGO’s will cherry pick data to support their ideology and this latest one by Hauer provides ample ammunition for their rhetoric. The report was commissioned by Glacier National Park (GNP) which has no connection to the Elk River and only borders the US portion of Flathead River. Why would GNP meddle in the affairs of Canada other than to assist environmentalists in their goal of creating the long sought after Flathead National Park? The objective of the study was to “focus on potential environmental effects of proposed coal mining in the Canadian portion of the Flathead River Basin”  One has to wonder why the report is focused on the Elk River when the study is supposed to be about the Flathead.

The information in Hauer’s report is not new, multiple studies since the late 90’s have been done on the Elk and Flathead River. Hauer fails to reference any of the historical data or the studies done by many selenium experts in Canada and the US. To further complicate the issue; Hauer is associated to environmental NGO’s on both sides of the border. In 2012 he was the coordinator for  Wildsight’s 2012 Bioblitz in the Canadian side of the Flathead. Science is supposed to work by building a body of research which takes us closer to the truth and is free from external influences.  We should demand better science from a university professor that expects no less of his students.

Selenium is a naturally occurring mineral that is found throughout the system and is a required mineral in our diet. The known science on selenium in the Elk River shows that it is not a mortality factor for fish over the entire length due to the fast flowing flushing capabilities of the Elk River.  In 1995 the river had a major freshet event that flushed fish and their spawning beds out of the river. It has bounced back to record levels of bull trout, cutthroat and whitefish without any intervention other than reduced angling regulations. For Hauer to suggest that “coal mines represent a significant threat to the ecological integrity of these streams and rivers” does not take into account the historic rise and fall of fish populations. This is a classic example of cherry picked data.

The environmental NGO’s definition of the Elk River as “polluted” “poisoned” “toxic’ are clearly ignorant of the natural beauty of the Elk. It is widely known as one of the best Cutthroat fisheries that attracts fishers from around the world. Fishers come here because of the size and quantity of cutthroat not the polluted toxic mess that activists want to frame the argument around.  Wildsight’s Ryland Nelson went out on a limb and recently quoted in the Fernie Free press “"You should not be eating more than one fish a week out of the Elk River otherwise you could be having health concerns". To suggest that people will be harmed by eating fish from the Elk River is fear mongering at best. Not one study has ever shown that correlation based on the values found in the Elk. Nelson uses no science to back up his claim; he is neither a scientist nor a health professional with any qualifications to make such a statement.

To place a moratorium on coal mining based on the Sierra Clubs rhetoric would be destructive at best. The environmental NGO’s are against all resource extraction regardless of the benefits to mankind. Environmentalist’s use a self-written version of the precautionary principle that places the onus on companies to prove nothing will ever happen to anyone forever into the future before they can proceed. Using their ideology a lot of the advances in modern science would never have been achieved.

 

Hauer's report only serves to fuel the media hype to ban coal mining and create a Flathead National park.  Environmental NGO’s and their American funders have the ability to be constructive and help the coal mines develop solutions to environmental issues, yet they choose the destructive path; using fear and misinformation to push their vision of what the world should be. It’s time we told these environmentalists to butt out unless they have something constructive or credible to add.

Paul Visentin Kootenay ThinkTwice group

Whos afraid of Fracking?

The BC liberals seem to understand that the opportunity to get BC's natural gas to the west coast, liquefy it and ship it to Asia is an opportunity similar to what Alberta cashed in on after they discovered oil. BC has an opportunity that most jurisdictions never have, a chance for 1000's of jobs and billions in government revenues.

Question is, what would an NDP government do with this opportunity? Let's do a quick comparison:

 

The BC Jobs Plan lays out how the Liberals expect to develop the LNG model

1) Greater emphasis on market diversification to increase the value of BC’s natural gas;

2) Supporting job creation together with industry, educators and communities;

3) Continued strong leadership on clean energy and climate change moving forward; and

4) A redefinition of government’s self-sufficiency policy to ensure BC is well-positioned to power expansion.

Adrian Dix has his LNG model laid out as well:

1) Appoint an expert panel to conduct a broad public review of fracking, including public hearings and consultations with First Nations, local communities, industry, environmental groups and citizens.

2) Make immediate changes to protect B.C.’s water resources, including consolidating authority for water licensing within one public body; improving water mapping, monitoring and public reporting; and ending the current practice of issuing free water permits through the Oil and Gas Commission.

3) Extend funding for the Farmers’ Advocate office to ensure landowners in the natural gas fields have the support they need to deal with the gas industry.

4) Examine the province’s Climate Action Plan in order to take into account proposed expansions in gas development, which will bring more upstream greenhouse gas emissions.

Even the most fracking cynical person in BC can’t argue against the fact that royalties from LNG will help every sector of the BC economy. It is expected to generate trillions of dollars to gov’t coffers over many years. This would place BC on par with our neighbor to the east in resource royalties. The next election will dictate how fast that revenue gets into the tax stream. Companies with billions of dollars to spend will only do so in a pro-business environment. In the 1990’s under the NDP the policies created for resource extraction closed down most of the industry. It would appear the NDP, if elected, are on track to return BC to the days of bureaucracy. The NDP strategy will force companies to go thru multiple levels of government, committees, consultations, advocacy offices and First Nations to get approval on each and every drill site, bridge crossing, pipeline, road and trail. The environmentalist’s will make erroneous claims that increased expansion contributes to climate change which will force the NDP to review the development process yet again. Companies will quietly move away from BC and find other areas of the world that are friendly to business and we will become a have not province again.

The opposition to LNG extraction is largely based on the explotation of the media by  environmentalists using misinformation and half-truths. Suzuki Foundation, Wildsight, Sierra Club of BC, Greenpeace and CPAWS  are all hoping that the NDP, if elected, will follow thier ideological views.

 

The article below provides a look at the US experience on fracking where it has been used for over 60 yrs. The next election will decide whether the province and its LNG treasure trove is headed for rags or riches; ThinkTwice on how you want to move BC forward.

Paul Visentin

ThinkTwice group

Who’s afraid of fracking?

Federal and state environmental officials have given hydraulic fracturing a clean bill of health. Why do radical environmentalists continue to wage war on this game-changing technology?

to read the full article click here....

 

Our real manmade climate crisis

The crisis is due not to climate change, but to actions taken in the name of preventing change

Paul Driessen

In his first address as Secretary of State, John Kerry said we must safeguard “the most sacred trust” we owe to our children and grandchildren: “an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate.”

Even the IPCC and British Meteorological Office now recognize that average global temperatures haven’t budged in almost 17 years. Little evidence suggests that sea level rise, storms, droughts, polar ice or other weather and climate events and trends display any statistically significant difference from what Earth and mankind have experienced over the last 100-plus years.

However, we do face imminent manmade climate disasters. Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time. We must do all we can to prevent looming climate catastrophes.

But those cataclysms have nothing to do with alleged human contributions to planetary climate systems that have always been chaotic, unpredictable and often disastrous: ice ages, little ice ages, dust bowls, droughts and monster storms that ravaged and sometimes even toppled cities and civilizations.

Our real climate crisis is our responses to Mr. Kerry’s illusory crises. It takes four closely related forms.

Influence peddling. Over the past three years, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center alone poured $335 million into environmentalist climate campaigns, and $1 billion into green lobbies at large, notes Undue Influence author Ron Arnold. Major US donors gave $199 million to Canadian environmental groups just for anti-oil sands and Keystone pipeline battles during the last twelve years, analysts Vivian Krause and Brian Seasholes estimate; the Tides Foundation poured $10 million into these battles during 2009-2012.

All told, US foundations alone have “invested” over $797 million in environmentalist climate campaigns since 2000! And over $19.3 billion in “environmental” efforts since 1995, Arnold calculates! Add to that the tens of billions that environmental activist groups, universities and other organizations have received from individual donors, corporations and government agencies to promote “manmade climate disaster” theories – and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

Moreover, that’s just US cash. It doesn’t include EU, UN and other climate cataclysm contributions. Nor does it include US or global spending on wind, solar, biofuel and other “renewable” energy schemes. That this money has caused widespread pernicious and corrupting effects should surprise no one.

continue reading full article here...