On EncounTeRing BEARS.. by a seasoned BC nature-lover

[Re-published from July 21, 2021]

I was compelled to write this in response to disturbing reports of (what should be rare) attacks by bears on humans here in BC's Lower Mainland - the worst part of which, for me, has been subsequent interviews with 'attackees' revealing they'd followed common advice they'd read in the media.

I can't help being concerned that irresponsible misinformation is so widely dispensed.  As a hiker/ naturalist BCer for whom encountering bears - in the wilderness & at home - is an almost daily summer occurrence, I feel the need to set the record straight.. & hopefully prevent any more unnecessary attacks!

First, let's debunk the most obvious falsehood making the rounds: the "make-lots-of-noise-to-scare-off-a-bear-as-soon-as-you-spot-one" approach.  In my experience, this tactic is much likelier to provoke a bear attack than anything!  This is borne out in at least one recently-reported attack on a camper, who when questioned afterward said they "did the right thing & made lots of noise by banging on pots & pans" when they saw the bear.  Luckily they weren't harmed.  But if they hadn't followed such bad advice in the first place, chances are the encounter would have been uneventful.

Making yourself visible to a bear - without making unnecessary noise - is, I've found, the best & easiest way to ensure any encounters with bears are incident-free.  Usually bears will either keep doing what they're doing, or turn & amble off in the opposite direction as soon as they see you.

It helps to know that bears are considered 'apex predators' (although black bears - most often seen here - are the shyest & least predatory of all bears).  Which brings us to the next misconception rattled off in the rags:  that mama bears are especially vicious with their young in tow.  Of course mama bears are protective of their cubs.  But unlike prey mammals (eg. deer/ mice) bears live a relatively threat-free existence; hence their laid-back demeanor.  That doesn't mean a mama won't lash out if you try to approach and/or lure one of her roly-poly cuddle-cubs (which is not only illegal; it's dumb AF!)  But as long as you keep to yourself, you won't be seen as a threat.

*  *  *  *

Bears' biggest threat is habitat loss by human industries like logging, as they need intact old-growth forests to thrive & hibernate in dens over winter.  Join groups like Wilderness Committee & Sierra Club & Wildlife Foundation to help campaign our govts to prioritize BC nature & #SaveOldGrowth & #SpeciesAtRisk+++. & vote for the party that serves peops not pulluters:  i.e. GREENS. (The rest are corrupt/ criminal)

*  *  *  *

Another thing to remember is that bears are omnivores, so they'll get used to eating whatever's most abundant & available - including human food, unfortch.  It's sad when people think it's OK to offer food to wild bears - despite being repeatedly WARNED NOT TO FEED WILDLIFE. Inadvertently (by leaving garbage accessible/ BBQs uncleaned etc.) or not, feeding wildlife can quickly turn them into nuisances, & more likely to be killed by authorities.

So it's CRITICAL to keep your home & yard free from food, scraps or waste - & to NEVER offer food to a bear:  once they equate humans with reliable food sources, they lose their fear of people & will return to the same spot yearly to forage, often becoming aggressive when defending food.

You can find out more fascinating facts about these solitary creatures here:

treehugger.com/surprising-facts-about-black-bears

If you DO startle a bear at close range (uncommon, as their hearing is better than ours - & with their excellent vision they'll probably see you first & will likely lumber away) DON'T make lots of noise - that may provoke her!  It's best to STAY CALM & let her wander off.  If she doesn't, or moves toward you, don't panic.  Back out of her way, while talking in a low steady voice & facing her the whole time.. without making a fuss!

Bears are experts at sensing fear & threats:  as long as you don't run at it or start screaming or some other startling behavior, bears will in most cases go about their business & ignore you (unless you have unwrapped food on you - NOT recommended!)  Chances are, they've a date with a berry bush/ mulberry tree top of mind & won't be easily deterred:  give it a wide berth/ get outa the way & you should be OK!

After countless positive encounters with bears, I can vouch for these tips to ensure your (& bears') safety here in  Bear Country:

(a) REMAIN CALM at all times. 

(b) Remember you're in their territory (even at home), so be aware & respectful always - of ALL wildlife.  If you have fruit trees they can access, leave them alone if you don't mind bears on your property (you can't blame them for finding their very fave desserts to eat!)  Believe me, coexisting is your least stressful option - & bonus:  they're fun to watch from afar. 

(c) When on hikes/ walks in the woods, never stray from designated paths & walkways.  Talk in a normal voice to alert bears of your presence.  Just like you, bears can find loud obtrusive noises irritating, esp. around their young.  From their p.o.v. the goal is to silence the noise - by attacking it!

(d) Just because a bear lumbers away on first seeing you, doesn't mean it's afraid:  it's instinctual.  So if you try & intimidate a bear by confronting it/ imitating it/ roaring loudly/ standing up to it (as some dumb sites advise) the bear may take your behavior as a challenge/ threat, & be provoked to attack! 

(e) Keep all food well-wrapped, & use bear-proof bins & garbage cans outdoors.  At home, decommission bird feeders & bring indoors until fall, when bears go to hibernate over winter.

(f) The main thing to keep in mind is:  yes bears are bigger & stronger than you, but their chief concerns are food (& more food) & their own families.  As long as you don't deter their access/ attention to either, there's no need to freak when encountering bears - say hi & move on.. & they'll likely do the same (even acknowledge you with a lazy 'wassap' nod before resuming as before)🌳

(g)  DON'T push your luck by trying to get a snapshot if it's close enough to lunge at you/ your camera:  you're still a potential intruder in its space!  Best to keep your distance when photographing these gorgeous critters - you can always ZOOM IN.  Or wait until next time, when you're more prepared.

To Canada's Climate deniers..

With the U.N. Climate Change Conference - COP26 - under way, this time in Glasgow (with Canadian PM Trudeau's presence belying our country's worse-than-ever dearth of Climate-Action progress) I feel obligated to consolidate local focus on some prevailing, relevant truths from those with the inside edge - i.e. the scientists on the frontlines of climate studies - (a) in emails with Sierra Club BC, below (b) Comments on articles such as the one reporting Extinction Rebellion's latest 'die-in' protest, here: 

Link to Vancouver Sun article

YOU & the blind 'majority' need to realize extinction & downgrade of Nature's ecosystems has been the creeping, insidious adjunct of human activity/industry since the start of the Industrial Revolution, with the worst of it concentrated in the past 2 decades - as officially confirmed by the world's top scientists - despite urgent warnings of the dire consequences of rising GHG emissions caused by polluting industries like agriculture/ logging (deforestation), mining (fossil fuels/ pollution) etc.

Science has also outlined specific counteractions we can (& must) take to mitigate & reverse outcomes such as climate change / global warming - eg. Reducing GHGs & ending deforestation of our oldest ecosystems (i.e. 'Lungs of the Earth', along with Brazil's Amazon rainforest).  Ignoring Science's calls to action exacerbates the worst effects - yet that's exactly what our leaders have done from day 1, with catastrophic results like wildfires diminishing our defences & putting whole populations at risk!

The global Climate Conference is again upon us, at which Canada - once again - must report our woeful failure to meet EVERY commitment made to IPCC-led GHG goals:  i.e. We're NOT 'doing our part' per climate action by honing the most ecocidal industries (like LNG/ TarSands) instead of transitioning to the eco-forward options available in every sector.

None of this comes solely from me/ the 'minority' - it's globally-acknowledged Science SPELLING OUT our obligations & responsibilities of the most urgent order, which we'd be fools to downplay and/or dismiss.

(Nature iS our sole provider that holds the keys to our future survival & signals how & where we're lacking/remiss:  we need to heed her messages, else follow our leaders off the cliff like lemmings)

NOW, here's Sierra Club's important email to me (my response below that, & Elisabeth's reply below mine):

B.C. old-growth announcement confirms ecological emergency 

Dear Sarah,

Your hard work, calls, emails and ongoing pressure is working.  Finally, the B.C. government has released new information and mapping on the state of old-growth forests in B.C. that confirms what we have been saying all along: we are in an ecological emergency.  Thanks to thousands of people like you, the B.C. government identified 2.6 million hectares of the most at-risk old-growth forests that require deferrals. But the government offered little details on when those deferrals will take place.

Because we've been told false promises before, Sierra Club BC remains very concerned about the lack of certainty on how the province will ensure that all logging companies in B.C. pause logging in the areas identified. Also noted is the lack of funding for Indigenous Nations and forestry workers that would enable a paradigm shift in how we manage forests.  Jens Wieting, our Senior Forest and Climate Campaigner explains:

“The work by the technical advisory panel shared today by the B.C. government shows the province’s ecological emergency in unprecedented detail and pinpoints which old-growth forests need immediate interim protection. Despite delays, it’s not too late to use this new mapping to stop the ongoing destruction of the most at-risk old-growth forests and implement the paradigm shift towards ecological integrity while respecting Indigenous jurisdiction,”

“Making the paradigm shift a reality will depend on quickly offering clarity on where and when the next logging deferrals will hit the ground and what level of support communities can count on. Without these steps, today’s announcement would be equivalent to adding tigers to the red-listed species, but not ending the hunt immediately."

The good news is that we no longer have to argue with government and industry about how much old growth is left. But with only $12 million in capacity funding for Indigenous Nations while they make decisions on logging deferrals in their territories, today’s announcement falls short on giving communities a safe and clear path to safeguarding ancient and intact forests.

We didn't see any financing to support forestry workers and there was no information on financing for Indigenous-led conservation solutions. Making the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a reality requires adequate funding to give Indigenous Nations a real choice when it comes to ending destructive resource extraction on their lands and waters.

We don't want you to think it's all doom and gloom. Another bright spot in today's announcement is that the province announced that BC Timber Sales will stop selling logging licenses in the most at-risk forests that were identified. BC Timber Sales controls one-fifth of logging in the province, meaning this step should result in interim protection for about 500,000 hectares of the most at-risk old-growth forests.  Of course, there's always a caveat and Jens warns:

“Without binding mechanisms for all operators, there is a risk that the new mapping could unleash a race to the bottom if operators decide to cut down the identified at-risk forests before interim protection is in place."

For now, ancient trees will continue to fall but it's important to remember that our efforts are working.  The progress is not as fast as we would like, and it's not time to rest on our laurels.  But we need to celebrate the fact that today's announcement is a step in the right direction, and it wouldn't have happened without you and thousands of people around the globe who love this place and want to change our relationship with forests.

For the last year, international news from B.C. has been about police violently arresting forest defenders to clear the path for clearcutting some of the last old-growth forests on Southern Vancouver Island. The world is watching from the UN COP 26 conference in Glasgow and elsewhere, eagerly waiting for news on when at-risk old-growth forests in B.C. will be truly protected.

Thanks for being part of our community.  Every voice is needed - especially yours.

Warmly,

Elisabeth Noble
Manager of Donor Engagement

(My reply to that email:)

Thanks for this Elisabeth – & while it’s good to hear the BC Govt’s latest announcements, I trust by now we’ve all learned that their words (almost without exception) have meant exactly ZERO vis-à-vis their claimed ‘paradigm shift’, i.e. Real changes in the forests/ on the ground.. As Jens Weiting said, “Without binding mechanisms for all operators, there is a risk that the new mapping could unleash a race to the bottom if operators decide to cut down the identified at-risk forests before interim protection is in place..” – May I be so bold as to suggest that scenario is ALREADY HAPPENING, RE-confirming your subject-line’s EMERGENCY like a delayed siren & demanding extra renewed efforts to make Govt honor their intentions, B4 it truly iS too late~!?

 

With Govt delays making a mockery of their Old-Growth Panel’s URGENT recommends, I strongly feel NOW is the critical time to consolidate all individual, disparate initiatives (eg. in your Action Takers Guide) into an ALL-IN concentrated & coordinated push (pref. in alliance with other forest-defending org’s!) that UPS THE ANTE on DESIRED RESULTS:  I.E. Ensuring Govt’s permanent legislated protections for our old-growth forests.. ASAP.  We need to show Horgan’s govt. their words have lost all credibility – while more At-Risk forests are lost forever thanks to Govt’s total absence of supportive actions!?

 

We forest defenders have been valiantly doing aLL we can – taking actions, on repeat – for months/ years, to no real avail besides Govt’s endless intentions stated over actual ACCELERATED CLEARCUTS/ DEFORESTATION:  continuing more of the same will presumably prove as pointless!?  If we don’T increase pressure NOW & show Govt. we REFUSE TO LOSE (led by  non-profits we support) we risk losing our priceless Old-Growth ecosystems forever.. & THAT is unthinkable.

 

 

In solidarity, SC.

(& Elisabeth's response to mine:)

Hi Sarah,

 

We completely agree.  The work is not happening fast enough.  But I really do think there is some hope.  No question we will lose more ancient forests…but everyone who we know in government says this is the most pressure and momentum they’ve ever seen in their lives.  Changes are coming, some old growth will be protected permanently, and we cannot let them off the hook.

 

We are already seeing “The Sky is Falling” type Op-Eds from the Steelworkers and ResourceWorks.  Now is definitely the time to call your MLA, thank them, and make sure they know you’re not giving up and will continue to hold them accountable!

 

Thank you so much for sending in a donation and for your work on the front lines.  I’ve only been out for a few days – never overnight.  So grateful for everyone who is stepping up to the plate.

 

Elisabeth Noble, CFRE

Manager of Donor Engagement

Sierra Club BC

Lekwungen Territory

Inspiring generations to defend nature and confront climate change, so families, communities and the natural world can prosper together.

TMX Reconsideration: Public Input..

For what it's worth, the BC Govt. was accepting public input to its 'Reconsideration of TMX' until March 1st -- results can be read on the publicly accessible list of comments, at this link:

 Projects.EAO.GOV.BC.CA

* NB: Govt. (unreasonably) specified that comments be limited to "Marine Shipping Category ONLY" -- just to throw everyone off & deter inevitable opposition, no doubt.. i.e. Exactly what you'd expect from irresponsible leaders that prefers to trick its public into agreeing to BILLION$ of OUR TAXES going to an uneconomical (Govt.-sponsored) project in a dying industry, one that's already been OPPOSED by the MAJORITY of BCers from the start, due to predictions it's bound to cause unmitigatable harms to our important biodiversity, natural ecosystems, salmon & marine wildlife.. even WITHOUT a disastrous spill, which itself is deemed "highly LIKELY" by the most legit & reputable scientific sources.

Following is my contribution to this 'Reconsideration' of Trans Mountain's Pipeline Expansion (TMX), for added reference points..

(BELOW THAT are copied-&-pasted public comments posted by a range of concerned contributors -- the majority of which, you may note, are overwhelmingly AGAINST building TMX -- for a wide range of strong reasons.. (Thank you to ALL who took time to add their own!

Starting with mine:

Sarah C.  (Feb. 16, 2021)

The NEB's dismissal of valid fears related to TMX's significantly increased shipping volumes - confirmed in Raincoast Foundation's painstakingly detailed initial (allowed) report - is unreasonable, considering TMX's early environmental assessment(s) projected significant (uncontested) increases in all marine-based activities -- activities which are already proven to be harmful to all BC's coastal marine wildlife species?!!

Equally worrisome reading the Draft 'Reconsideration' (hope I got that right!) is HOW the NEB can dismiss concerns raised regarding GHG emissions from Project-related marine shipping, based solely on Trans Mountain's own "..air quality assessment that predicted GHG emissions from Project-related marine shipping would be reduced as a result of new energy efficiency standards adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), of which Canada is a member state, and the proposed federal Clean Fuel Standard regulations". 

For TMX's own statement (which is what the NEB has used as its reasoning) to be valid, first you must ask, have ANY Cdn/BC actual recorded GHG levels been commensurate -- or even marginally aligned -- with any of the goals/ regulations/ standards set, by anyone (incl. Govt?)?  No.  Canada's actual GHG emissions have risen exponentially - & are expected to keep rising in spite of regulated standards if we don't drastically reduce our actual GHG output (& not just set more heightened 'goals' with fewer industry sectors' measures included!)  As such, Canada's regs/ standards are nothing more than optimistic fabrications at this point.  So TMX's predictions thereof -- which the NEB uses here as its own -- are not accurate or real or true by any measure, so cannot be taken as a good reason to exclude rising GHGs as a VALID CONDITION in this Reconsideration..

Equally valid are concerns expressed by Squamish Nation and the City of Vancouver re. TMX-related rise in "GHG emissions from increased vessel traffic, and upstream extraction activities and downstream combustion of extracted product leading to an increase in GHG emissions and exacerbating sea level rise".  So why does the NEB negate their input based on, in NEB's own words, "Trans Mountain's own view that since Project operations (excluding marine shipping) were not the subject of the NEB Reconsideration process, any amendments (thereto) 'are outside the scope of the provincial reconsideration process'"?  This process cannot possibly contain the required credentials/ scope/ standards to be considered valid if the NEB takes all its reasoning directly from Trans Mountain's own arguments & ADMITS this Reconsideration is too limited to be complete/ valid!!?

We're talking about the future extinction of our iconic native biodiversity - species as endemic as the Resident Orca whale, which is already being catastrophically harmed by EXISTING marine activities/ shipping in BC's coastal waters!!?  If THESE cataclysmic events are not included in this 'Reconsideration' due to arbitrary/ self-set limitations, where is proper accountability/ assessment/ reconsideration for the extreme harms TMX has already been proven to exacerbate in THOSE --ie. in ALL -- categories related to TMX??

Even more confusing, is the question of HOW it can possibly be deemed "unlikely" the very real possibility (according to already-uncontested analyses of TMX projections) of a spill by TMX in BC waters, when ordinary boats/ferries are known to have grounded & sunk & killed people as a result of sailing in these same waters WITHOUT the added risk of TMX's dangerous size & load(s)?   WITH them, it is extremely relevant & significant that there is NO KNOWN CLEANUP/ PRODUCT/ REMEDIAL CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO PROPERLY MITIGATE A SPILL OF THE TYPE OF MATERIAL TMX WILL BE SENDING FROM THE POLLUTING TARSANDS TO OUR COAST & THEN SHIPPING FROM (necessarily) ENLARGED PORTS THRU OUR SEAS TO CHINA, where (if arrived) it will be used in various polluting & toxic processes that will only ADD TO rising global GHG counts -- levels deemed disastrous by most measures (except, naturally, TMX's own team of - biased - assessors in their own product's Reconsideration!!??)

It's all too clear at this point on which side of this "Hearing" our own Govt sits, given the source cited (TMX) as basis for its hastily-arrived - NOT PROPERLY CONSULTED! - conclusions made in this oddly-named "Reconsideration" with parameters so narrow that most heartfelt (highly-wrought, by its very nature of fast-tracking functional extinction!!?) public input Govt will doubtless exclude as "irrelevant" to this specific sub-topic of a sub-category of a MEGA-PROJECT most of us --taxpaying public-- rejected outright from the start!

Given resultant previous Govt approvals of TMX despite the detailed dangers thereof outlined with careful scrutiny by our best related (REAL!) experts/ scientists, we've no reason to expect a positive outcome to THIS latest process ( = pretending to care what indigenous/ public responses say, while using them:   A. to appease the panicked public re. extreme spending on exiting fossil-fuel subsidies that render TMX -- NOT court-forced conditions -- IRRELEVANT & OBSOLETE... & B. to assess how to tailor their Final Approval so the lazy LCD majority will accept TMX with its "new" conditions..)   

In reality, the educated & knowledgeable minority know that construction of TMX will always be the clincher, ie. the fossilized & obsolete old pipeline that set climate change locked into its inevitable outcome that NOBODY will ultimately witness in the end.. (So TMX will have achieved its  widely-predicted genocidal result without accusation of its unmitigatable -wd?- catastrophic effects by a living soul!)  Or so they apparently hope, against all legit info/ records/ stats etc..

TMX's approval, regardless of conditions/limitations set, will guarantee the start of the end -- the darkest day in Canadians' if not humanity's entire history:  a mega-project with the highest price imaginable, that of destruction of all life on Earth!  (Well done, Govt & TMX - your children must be so proud of your devious designs to put our taxes into thwarting all future hope!)

With links to the following documents:

attach_fileBCWF-Response-to-Together-For-Wildlife-Document.pdf

attach_file2018-complicity-in-destruction.pdf

attach_file2019-climatechange-accountability-report-web (1).pdf

attach_fileBanking_on_Climate_Change__2020_vF.pdf

POSTED COMMENTS BY OTHER CONTRIBUTORS:

Anonymous

February 17, 2021

The consultation does not include informed prior consent from the Coast Salish People, this is in direct contradiction to UNDRIP which the Province of British Columbia is a signatory.

Anonymous

February 17, 2021

Please heed the non-consenting Indigenous communities’ objections. Please respect those who are directly impacted by this project. Please heed climate science. Please heed the warnings from studies that environmentalists are publishing about the irreversible impact on endangered species that can’t be rejuvenated (all for the sake of $$) and the ecological devastation that will follow a spill. Which can and DO happen. On land and at sea. Our land, our kids’ futures, species at risk and our environment matter to us even if they don’t matter to you. This is why we object and will continue to do so. This pipeline project is unconscionable. Imagine the difference that money could make if invested in green technology to protect the planet (and inhabitants)? Which will still be around (in altered form) long after the luxuries you pursue from the profits that make their way to your bank accounts have been realized.

Anonymous

February 17, 2021

The Draft Provincial Reconsideration Report fails to place strong conditions on Trans Mountain pipeline project. I do not see clear, measurable and enforceable rules set out in this report for many areas of concern and thus it does not do nearly enough to protect humans and other living beings residing on the coast against a potential spill. Below are some reasons I believe this to be true based on my reading of the report its outcomes for the BC provincial government: - BC is relying too heavily on the federal government for protective measures against the risks of the TMX project. The risk of a spill on this coast is far too serious to leave out the various pathways for action they will take to prevent a spill now. BC should set clear, measurable, and enforceable standards and rules now about what BC can and will do to regulate TMX to prevent a spill. - This report dismisses the concerns of affected First Nations groups, despite affected First Nations not giving free, prior and informed consent to this project. This is despite BC passing UNDRIP and committing to align all government policies with the principles set out in UNDRIP. The B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act provides for the use of frameworks for joint decision-making yet there is no effort to utilize them in this report, essentially dismissing BC's own efforts for reconciliation as well as ignoring First Nations calls for free, prior, informed consent and accountability for Trans Mountain Expansion project that is being pushed through their unceded territories by the federal government. If BC truly cares about reconciliation it will stand up for these groups by leveraging UNDRIP to include First Nations groups in the decision making around this project and its effects. - There is thus a huge gap in addressing spill preparedness, essentially passing the buck to the federal government on this issue. We all have a responsibility to protect the coast on which we reside but as shorelines are a provincially managed ecosystem, BC should not be giving away its powers to the federal government to protect coastal ecosystems. I see no clarity about equipment, labour sourcing, training, how much oil will be cleaned up. If a spill occurs, which scientific evidence points to as very likely should this project go through, there will be irreparable harm to this coast and every being residing here. It is inexcusable not to use every power available to BC to plan for a spill now without relying heavily on the federal government. The health of the environment is the responsibility of all people, especially those in positions of power. - BC EAO should ensure that Trans Mountain issue a report on potential health impacts of a spill that include mental and social determinants of health and make certain that this report from Trans Mountain is turned into clear rules for preventative action, as well as ensure that the costs for preventative action are not paid for by the public. - There must be meaningful plans/framework put in place for post-spill remediation and recovery that respects Indigenous rights and titleholders, and that sets clear rules for post-spill damage and loss that address ecological, economic and social damages. Given the immense risk of this project I would hope to see the government not relying on a polluter pays principle, but in any case there must not be any room for polluters to evade their responsibilities in the event of a spill and there must be clear criteria and timelines for recovery put into place. - BC and BC EAO must make an effort to engage the public in a meaningful and accessible way. The 85 page report and its technical, scientific wording is a huge barrier to public participation and accountability. If the BC government truly cares about being accountable to the people of this province they must create a plain language report summary and plain language documentation on oil spill plans that is translated into many languages and that is make widely available as this is an issue that affects us all. The BC Government must not hide behind technical jargon and instead take on the burden of accountability for letting this risky, climate-change inducing pipeline project to be built on this coast.

Anonymous

February 17, 2021

Why is TMX allowed to reroute the pipeline through the Brunette River and destroy over 1300 trees in our urban forest? Why can’t we stop this madness?

Anonymous

February 16, 2021

Oh please said the trees, the squirrels, the salmon, the robins and crows, please save me. As you move from fossil fuel to green energy you know you won’t need this pipeline. Two legged have take so much. Leave this land as she is, you are smart two legged people think outside your box.

L Nicks, New Westminster, BC

February 16, 2021

Installing a new pipeline makes no sense either environmentally or financially. The environmental costs are obvious: destruction and contamination of water, land, flora and fauna; not to mention the danger to nearby residents or visitors to the area, specifically children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems or other chronic health issues. I notice that the proposed pipeline is not slated for areas like West Vancouver or Point Grey. It's only middle-class or poor neighborhoods that are being inflicted with this potential for widespread and long-term contamination. Don't tell me about precautions or X number of days without a spill. A spill will happen and it will be an environmental calamity. There have been too many spills on land and in the sea around the world as well as here in Canada for any guarantees to the contrary to make me feel reassured. In fact, one spill is too many. Financially, the pipeline makes no sense because we all know the oil and gas industry is dying. Green energy sources are becoming more and more successful in providing energy and jobs. Norway has divested itself of all oil and gas sources, its main source of income for decades. But for the sake of their own environment and the world's, Norway made a forward looking choice. Canada should do the same. Let's make the right choice and move towards a future of green energy.

Peter L, New Westminster, BC,

February 16, 2021

The Trans Mountain tar sands pipeline is opposed by millions of people, many Indigenous nations living along the pipeline route, and dozens of municipalities - including the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby. Tens of thousands have demonstrated against the Trans Mountain pipeline, year after year. If that wasn’t enough, now the Canadian government’s own oil regulator did the math and confirmed that the Trans Mountain pipeline is not only inconsistent with Canada’s climate commitments, but actually completely unnecessary. The United Nations has also called for governments around the world to slash fossil fuel production by 6% per year to have any hope of keeping their Paris climate commitments. That means no 👏 new 👏 pipeline👏 projects. With the Keystone XL pipeline now dead, the spotlight has immediately shifted to Trans Mountain. There’s still time to cancel this pipeline, and redirect the $10 billion still unspent to clean water and energy instead.

Anonymous

February 16, 2021

We are living in the decline of fossil fuels. World wide, countries are trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels because the risk to the world, including the oceans, is indisputable. Canada has the opportunity to be a leader in this, not a follower. Marine life, in particular, is threatened by the inevitable oil spill, and this is not properly addressed. Orcas and other ocean mammals need protection and if we don't provide it, nobody will. I do not want to see this pipeline built. Alberta's oil is heavy and dirty, and it's time to support the people of that province to change to a green economy. It's time to stop supporting a dying industry. This takes courage. For once, let's put life over profit.

Anonymous

February 15, 2021

This pipeline is in violation of First Nations treaties and the unceded territory’s. It is also in violation of UNDRIP. History has been repeated by this government by removing First Nations people from their land and the same treatment has occurred when they were first put on reserves. This is cultural genocide. This Transcanada pipeline has already shown previously that it can and WILL leak. How is it that you can put this pristine eco system at risk for a brief profit and temporary jobs. We moved here to BC because we thought that you were forward thinking ahead of the rest of Canada. Allowing this pipeline does not say that and it shows that profits are more important than the environment or people. This government has allowed the destruction of old growth forests to the point that it barely exists. We MUST protect the environment at ALL COSTS for all of nature, your children and you children’s children. No amount of reforming or reconsiderations is acceptable. I thought governments represented the people and not corporations ?! Once a spill occurs it will not matter what new technology is created the harmful effects will be there forever. Who will be responsible for the homes destroyed? Will the pipeline companies pay full restitution? The past has shown that they will not. Alberta already has a huge problem with abandon drills sites because the oil companies are doing nothing and will do nothing These younger people are our future don’t destroy the eco system, leave them with the things we have been fortunate enough to enjoy in our lifetime. Will everyone in the NEB take legal responsibility when (not if) the pipeline leaks destroy habitats, waters and ocean life for good ? If now who will be held responsible? https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/trans-mountain-pipeline/ https://thenarwhal.ca/canada-needs-more-pipelines-myth-busted/ https://thenarwhal.ca/opinion-keystone-xl-cancellation-canada-oil/ https://thenarwhal.ca/un-rebukes-canada-industrial-projects/ https://thenarwhal.ca/the-story-of-albertas-100-billion-well-liability-problem-how-did-we-get-here/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/10/31/keystone-pipeline-leaks-gallons-oil-second-big-spill-two-years/ https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/EE-Safety-Briefing.pdf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

Anonymous

February 3, 2021

It’s not too late to save our children and grandchildren’s future. By moving forward with this, you are robbing them of a chance to see whales and other endangered marine life. We can’t keep taking from the earth. Do the right thing and cancel TMX.

Anonymous

February 2, 2021

Unfortunately there is no way to attach sufficient requirements to this proposal. The risks to the marine environment are too high and the inability of the assessment to impose legally binding requirements on the tankers creates even more risk. While I understand that some people feel we should be using our natural resources until we've transitioned to renewable energy, I worry that the money being spent by our government to buy pipelines and subsidize the fossil fuel industry is a very poor investment. This money could have a much greater impact, and employ way more people, if it was invested in a green transition. Even our own government budget office understands that this pipeline does not make economic sense for our country. I believe the impacts to our coast line (another valuable resource) when a spill occurs are too great of a loss both economically and more importantly ecologically. We are already experiencing the impacts of climate change in Canada and the financial benefits this project will bring (if any) and minuscule compared to the costs of addressing climate disasters, not to mention the suffering we will all face as our world change before us. Furthermore, I believe our country has a long way to go to deliver on our responsibility of reconciliation with First Nations and this project undermines any of those efforts. I'm embarrassed that our country owns a pipeline at a time when so many countries around the world are taking steps to be leaders in addressing climate change. Saying that we all use and need oil is ludicrous. If more money was invested in renewables than in fossil fuel subsidies than we would have more choices available to us to stop using oil. Right now the government is supporting a monopoly on our energy and we have very little say. Please, I ask that those in charge of this process exercise whatever power they have to put an end to this short-sighted and dangerous project.

Anonymous

February 2, 2021

This does not make sense...we need to shift our thinking more towards climate action and not what we need as human! That thinking needs to stop we need to get renewable energy which is very possible and Affordable. We all know that’s the truth. Stop all the talking and ACT in order to save our planet and the future. Not spending more money for oil company’s to gain from. Our wild life animals are already paying the price. If anything has taught from COVID 19 is that we can as human live in harmony and live simple. Look at how many COVID dogs there are...we need animals. They don’t need us. They pay the price right away and ultimately we will too.

Anonymous

February 2, 2021

Please go forward with environmental, and creative solutions to energy creation that does not harm the planet or the sacred creatures that exist within it. TMX has no future that is sustainable for long term solutions. There are better options. Fossil fuels are on the way out. Just like coal. Surely this pandemic has shown the ingenuity of humanity. There are so many solutions. And each of us hold the key.

Anonymous

February 2, 2021

Cancel it.

Anonymous

February 2, 2021

A huge mistake if indeed it goes ahead. With our beautiful narrow Burrard Inlet already loading Oil from the existing pipeline, Sulphur and Potash a bit west we are desecrating the legacy for our future. Oil is on the way out. Lets find a better spot for its transfer to refineries in the USA and Asian countries. So, cancel or reroute it.

Mohamad Awada , Burnaby Mountain

February 2, 2021

I’m completely against of the TMX pipeline, because it’s going to impact our environment and our Burrard Inlet. And also it’s bad for BC, I fear the increased tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet will have the permanent, negative consequences to the local marine flora and marine wildlife. Every time I hear of orca spotting in the Inlet, I get sooo frustrated with the fact knowing these waters will be made inhospitable to them as the sound from ships increase and their food sources are disrupted. The increased tanker traffic will add carbon emissions to our community by continuously spewing emissions during the time in transit. The pipeline has little benefit to British Columbians, why should we even allow such a thing to go through our backyards. This is an decadent energy source the world is actively trying to move away from. For us in in BC, it’s all cost and no benefits, We as British Colombians we don’t want the pipeline twinning will require significant disruption to fragile ecosystems already recovered from the existing pipeline. Why build another one? If Alberta wants the profit, let them take the risk. By allowing the pipeline, we are enabling poor environmental practices and dependency on foreign companies to prop up an economy dependent on a failing commodity. No to TMX No to TMX.

attach_file762DF7B5-D06C-4650-B310-39B5ADDBBD4A.jpeg

Anonymous

February 2, 2021

You Can cancel TMX. You will destroy the coastline if you do not. You are living in a fantasy upsidedown world of you think otherwise.

Anonymous

February 3, 2021

I do NOT support this pipeline. We want fewer ships in our waters, not more. Direct funds away from this project, into sources of clean energy.

Anonymous

February 3, 2021

I am firmly opposed to the pipeline and will consider civil disobedience to obstruct it. We need to transition to a green economy as fast as possible. The money we are wasting on Site C should be spent on a renewable energy economy. Drastic action is called for. Absolutely NO more pipelines!

Anonymous

February 3, 2021

This is a terrible new pipeline given that we need to start reducing oil consumption. And Bitumen is toxic, spills would create huge environmental damage. So anything that can be done to make it safer is great but best option is that somehow it gets stopped.

Anonymous

February 3, 2021

I am firmly opposed to the pipeline and will consider civil disobedience to obstruct it. We need to transition to a green economy as fast as possible. Drastic action is called for. Not more pipelines!

Anonymous

February 4, 2021

Oil is dead, dying and killing our planet whether you're talking GHG emissions, plastics in our oceans or poisons in our air and tailing ponds. The only reason it's not gone from our lives is due to lobbyist, subsidies and cronyism. We need to invest in a green recovery before it's truly too late. Which side of history do you want to be on?

Anonymous

February 3, 2021

The money being funneled into pipeline expansions and increasing the production of fossil fuels in Canada should be spent on renewable energy like solar, geothermal, battery technology , and others. Canada needs to be a leader in climate change policy, not following our neighbors to the south. Canadian jobs can be created to create energy for Canadians, not to ship oil and gas to foreign countries. Shipping these products in sensitive marine environments can and will have dire consequences on the ecosystems.

Anonymous

February 3, 2021

Going ahead with the project is madness. They should cut their losses. There is no future in oil. The damage that it WILL cause will be catastrophic and irreparable. Put our tax money into producing hemp made plastics not oil made plastics. Once the damage is done... it’s over. No clean water or food = sick humans = massive cost to healthcare system = massive cost to government. People often complain about job losses due to turning our back on oil, but if you turn towards better environmental options, it creates jobs. Growing pains hurt, but you have to grow because there is no choice and you come out the other end stronger. We will only be weaker if we encourage the oil industry.

Kevin D Lessor (Engineer), Powell River B.C.

February 4, 2021

I think public and private stakeholders should get together on a project that allows the TMX to come to Burnaby and build one or two fractionators and refine our own bunker c.In doing this you can sell all the byproducts .Which will bring other business to process by value added to the byproducts of the process.The fuel we produce will be sold locally.By consuming what we process there will be little to no tanker traffic on the inside straight.

Anonymous

February 4, 2021

STOP THIS PROJECT NOW. Yes that will be expensive. FAR MORE EXPENSIVE, in many ways, , would be the damage done to ecosystems, wildlife, water, tourism, and human health. Yes the oil companies will scream. Let them scream. The day of their dominance has to cease. The pro-oil, pro-carbon, pro-fossil days are OVER OVER OVER. Yes it will be expensive to compensate, to change, to alter old habits. SPEND THE MONEY! ITS MY MONEY YOU”RE SPENDING AND THAT IS FINE BY ME. Don’t give in to the oil barons.

Anonymous

February 4, 2021

I am a resident of Vancouver, a student of the environment at UBC, and I stand against the TMX expansion. It would be an awful blow to all aspects of the environment and work against BC's sustainability mission.

Anonymous

February 4, 2021

Do not build this pipeline.

Anonymous

February 4, 2021

It should not be done. The damage it will cause will be detrimental to our lands and sea life.

Eric Pahal, Vancouver

February 4, 2021

Ignorance is bliss? The slightest bit of real research indicates that our only chance of preventing climate change is halting fossil fuel projects identical to this.

Adrian Hunt, Kelowna, BC

February 4, 2021

No pipeline, please!! Gas is passe. The era of diesel is over. Capitalism does not help most people. You are Immoral to pushing forward such a violent act upon the earth and its inhabitants.

Anonymous

February 5, 2021

I understand that the province does not have the ability to cancel the pipeline extension, but wish to express my position that it should NOT be extended. The oil and gas business is not what we as a nation should be investing in. If we are to make any kind of impact on lessening our devastation of the environment, we need to start investing NOW in renewable resources. I didn't see anything specific in the proposed amendments that would require the TMX companies to provide up-front funds that would go towards remediating any kind of pipeline spill. They should be required to PAY UP-FRONT for what is sure to happen at some point. It's not a matter of 'if', but a matter of 'when'. The same can be said for the tankers that will take away the bitumen. We KNOW that at some point there will be a spill. Our waters, our wildlife, and the citizens that live on the coast will all pay for that. The companies making the profits from these projects should be MADE to pay into a fund to remediate the effects of these disasters to come. They should pay up-front, because we all know that when things go wrong they will just declare bankruptcy and escape from their responsibilities.

Anonymous

February 5, 2021

We do not need a pipeline or tankers in British Columbia’s lands or waters. Both would cause major destruction and devastation to our environment, habitat of wildlife, mammals and plant species. Canada should be forward thinking and investing in clean energy projects. Study Europe and instead of depleting our natural resources, protect them.

Anonymous

February 5, 2021

This pipeline should not be built. The increase in oil tanker traffic poses a significant risk to our marine and terrestrial environments as well as disrupts the visual beauty of the areas that they would be harboured. Additionally, projects that are based on non-renewable resources such as this are antiquated and need to be replaced by ones that are based on renewable sources of energy. Such drastic shifts are required if we, as a country, are truly serious about combating climate change.

Anonymous

February 5, 2021

All governments need to respect Indigenous people and their land. We don't need pipelines, we need solar/wind, etc... Yes natural gas is supposedly green but look at the damage pulling it out of the earth! Shame on all you nasties pushing pipelines.

Janette Sperber, Victoria BC

February 5, 2021

Please reject and prohibit any aspects of pipeline expansion that threaten endangered species or degrade critical habitats.

Anonymous

February 6, 2021

We need to follow the scientific evidence and not increase our fossil fuel infrastructure. I am not in favour of this or any fossil fuel pipeline.

Deborah Jackson, Vancouver

February 6, 2021

Given the total disregard for indigenous lands, as well as the lack of need for further extraction or transportation of fossil fuels, the pipeline should NOT even be built. The thought that the BC Government would even consider compromising our fragile and unique marine life system to accommodate said pipeline is UNACCEPTABLE.

Anonymous

February 6, 2021

Stop building and expanding this pipeline. Stop wasting our tax dollars supporting this. Stop letting Alberta and the Federal government put our local environment, indigenous communities and people at risk. Oil and gas is done, move on to investing in sustainable energy sources instead. If you want to create more jobs in the province, start investing in companies that support the protection of our coast and rivers.

Jess, Burnaby

February 7, 2021

As a city that prides its self on its natural beauty and brings in millions of dollars in ecotourism yearly, is there really an argument for more tanker traffic in the harbour? Never mind the fact that we’ve reached peak oil and that the extraction and processing of tar sands oil is hardly even economically viable at this point, let alone 20 years from now. Let the environment be. I’d be so pleased to see investment in a diverse range of renewable resources. I stand firmly against trans mountain pipeline expansion project.

Anonymous

February 7, 2021

First and most importantly, this project does not have consent from Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish, and Musqueam peoples, whose unceded ancestral land this project is proposed (and imposed) upon. These nations have said “no” to the project and continuing without consent is another offence towards Indigenous peoples, on top of a history of abuse and oppression. The project itself is not a benefit of BC’s interests, nor Canada’s long-term prosperity. This is a lossy, wasteful development that should be stopped. The risk of harm to the environment, waterways, marshlands, wildlife, and humans far outweighs the short-term economic benefit.

There is nothing about this project that protects the land that is being badly affected as the pipeline moves through this Province. This heavy bitumen is the last thing to move over water. In the protection of the whales and sealife in our area: no oil! In light of our coming years of moving away from this disastrous product this is just foolish. You cannot claim to protect our environment by pursuing this oil meets water. Lastly, what about the tankers that you have no control over - noise pollution, water pollution. The idea of continuing this way of moving thick oil or any oil over water is beyond ridiculous.

Anonymous

February 7, 2021

This project was untenable at its inception as the world looked at ways to combat climate change. Now with the Biden government in place and the situation even more dire for climate change, it is absolutely lunacy to build this pipeline. Time to invest in green jobs instead of holding on to the oil sands, time to develop sustainable practises instead of holding on to antiquated technology. Stop this insanity and move to the future.

Anonymous

February 7, 2021

As a environmental toxicology researcher at Simon Fraser University, I have seen the data on the state of our environment as of now. There is NO way the Salish seas can handle more oil tanker traffic. The J pod orcas are holding on by a thread!! They were just starting to regain strenght but only due to a decrease in tanker traffic. Our oceans and air is already polluted. Our environment cannot tolerate anymore pollution! This pipeline will seriously endanger the lives and health of people and the environment! Why are we still investing in oil!??? Could we not have used the 4.9 billion invested in this pipeline to find alternative and sustainable sources of energy?? That could have created thousands of jobs too. Jobs that would also be sustainable into the future unlike the oil industry. Make the changes to the NEB report but be honest, it's an excuse for the BC government to say they tried to do something. We all know what these reports just cost money and are riddled with bureaucratic bullsh*t. I will fight against the TMX pipeline with every fiber of my being and SO SHOULD THE BC GOVERNMENT! You can do better than amending a report, come on.

Simon W Tallboy, DUNCAN

February 7, 2021

I am very much against this project and I am very disappointed the Federal Government approved it. The oil industry is a sunset industry, and spending money on it is a lost opportunity to move forwards on solutions to the crisis we are facing. The fact that industry didn't want to spend the money to finish it should be a warning sign. The oil industry is aware that the worldwide demand is likely to be declining, they call it "Demand Destruction". The fact that the largest players in the industry like Shell now refer to themselves as Energy companies rather than Oil companies should also have given the Government some pause. They people running these companies aren't stupid, and the fact they seem to have a clearer picture of the future than our Government is really concerning. I feel the risk to the environment is too great, especially the marine environment in my immediate area. It seems to me the economic impact of a spill in the Salish Sea would greatly out weigh the benefits of the pipeline. The life of the pipeline is unlikely to be long enough to make the investment worth while. This money could have been spend on greener tech, grants to improve efficiencies to peoples homes, solar, heat pumps etc to lower energy usage. I also feel that increasing shipping is a problem not only for the local environment, but also the larger environment as the shipping and airline industries burn a lot of fuel and seem to do very little to improve their carbon foot print. I'm afraid that we will have a spill and discover that the response is lacking and the damage overwhelming. I'm also disappointed the lip service given to reconciliation in the face of objections from many of the local indigenous people on the coast. I also feel the Government is marketing the idea that the revenue from the pipeline will fund green projects. I feel that they should have invested in the green projects and left the pipeline to the industry. I do not believe this pipeline will lead to lasting employment. The industry is investing heavily in automation, so I do not see new jobs there. And their response to leaks from existing pipelines has been poor at best. I feel that the current American leadership is likely to do more for the Climate Crisis than our Government is, and that is disappointing. I think the resources they will spend on this Sunset industry would be better spent elsewhere, but that is unlikely to happen. simon Tallboy