Jump to content

      



























Photo

Saanich EDPA


  • Please log in to reply
262 replies to this topic

#61 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 08:26 PM

I agree with all this.  I disagree with the bungled process.  Or in Benn's words, the "BS process".   :wave:

I'm glad you can agree that the councillor didn't have any direct hand in the process. It wouldn't have been in the EDPA anyways and if anything, maybe that councillor pushed the developer to do MORE than most others have when developing a lot. I'm sure since you brought up Stan Wright Lane you have actually seen for yourself what it looks like now and the community amenities given to Saanich. It should be the standard in Saanich when a developer approaches Saanich and starts discussion development. 



#62 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:09 AM

Does this look like we've been running roughshod over nature around here?

 

 

The Province disagrees with your position. "Intense development pressures have resulted in the fragmentation, degradation, and loss of natural ecosystems" on the South Island. That's why we have Environmental Protection Permit bylaws in municipalities throughout the province, including Saanich.  

 


#63 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:32 AM

 

The Province disagrees with your position. "Intense development pressures have resulted in the fragmentation, degradation, and loss of natural ecosystems" on the South Island. That's why we have Environmental Protection Permit bylaws in municipalities throughout the province, including Saanich.  

 

 

 

Oh, I agree with the statement.  But the only way to not interfere and degrade the ecosystem is to leave them alone.  Look, in today's environmental climate, we could never build the Pat Bay Highway.  I for one, am glad we built it before people got all eco-worried.  Or we'd all be driving West Saanich Rd. to the ferry.

 

And nothing degrades the environment as much as energy use and fossil fuel burning.  But I bet you'll drive car this week, stargazer.  For the record, I won't.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#64 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:48 AM

That's untrue. The EDPA doesn't prevent people from developing, what it allows is consideration for the environment. So instead of building a 12 homes in a 1.5 acre parcel of land completely razing the natural area, maybe building 8 or 6 homes within it and trying to maintain a necessary corridor for habitat. What we are seeing within Saanich is due to the rising costs of property, it is much more valuable for people to subdivide their lots than it is to want to preserve any of the natural features that are unique to it's area. In doing so, driving out all the animals, birds that rely on it and cutting down trees (including the protected oaks) to make room for homes. Saanich has lost 40% of it's tree canopy in the last 20 years and mostly due to development on private properties. That is a staggering number within the CRD. Having development bylaws like the EDPA only slows down development enough to ensure that the environment also gets some planning for the future. We can't keep developing Saanich like it's the '60's, yet council's most recent move to gut the EDPA has certainly sent us back there. 

http://www.vicnews.c.../217416861.html


  • dasmo likes this

#65 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:52 AM

Have you seen a map of our province though?  We could blacktop Sooke to Sidney, and we would not make any significant difference in the amount of wildlife or trees or newts or whatever overall.  I think we have to house people, over frogs.  Frogs have the other 99.96% of the province.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#66 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:15 AM

Have you seen a map of our province though?  We could blacktop Sooke to Sidney, and we would not make any significant difference in the amount of wildlife or trees or newts or whatever overall.  I think we have to house people, over frogs.  Frogs have the other 99.96% of the province.

Except that everyone claims that until it's all gone. Take the Netherlands for instance. Their eco-system consists of Cows, pigs, grass, dogs, and people (maybe a couple trees and birds). That's about it.... We should charge them for providing their oxygen (the little is flowing there).... The point is this pinpoints sensitive areas to ALLOW development to happen without nuking the functioning system.  

It's like when I was a deckhand and we would see the mass deforestation along the remote coasts right to the waterline. We all knew what destroyed the fishing south island. It was only a $10,000 fine if you destroyed a salmon spawning river or stream so why care.... Just part of doing business.... 


Edited by dasmo, 20 March 2017 - 10:16 AM.

  • vicstargazer likes this

#67 Jason-L

Jason-L
  • Member
  • 1,257 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:33 AM

Have you seen a map of our province though?  We could blacktop Sooke to Sidney, and we would not make any significant difference in the amount of wildlife or trees or newts or whatever overall.  I think we have to house people, over frogs.  Frogs have the other 99.96% of the province.

It sure would make a significant difference to the wildlife, trees, newts and whatever that live between Sooke and Sidney!

 

I know you understand that environmental ecosystems are not just macro things, and that trees in Northern BC are not the same as trees on the South Island, etc. etc. and this is some ridiculous simplification on your part to spur discussion and debate.  At least I hope so, because you seem incredibly eager to replace everything on the south Island with concrete and asphalt.



#68 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:41 AM

Except that everyone claims that until it's all gone. Take the Netherlands for instance. Their eco-system consists of Cows, pigs, grass, dogs, and people (maybe a couple trees and birds). That's about it.... 

 

Netherlands:  16M people, 41,000 sq. km (the same size as Wood Buffalo Park, Canada's largest)

BC:  4M people, 950,000 sq. km.

 

I think we'll be OK for a few thousand years.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#69 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:37 PM

Remaining-Old-Growth.png



#70 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:44 PM

It only took 60 years to nearly wipe out the humpback whale population here. They are on a recovery path now.... If you take a heartless approach to the subject and ignore that these are intelligent, aware and thankfully forgiving or forgetful beings, we might still have a whaling industry here if they didn't just go hog wild during those days....  



#71 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 01:10 PM

Remaining-Old-Growth.png

 

Well, this looks fabulous to me.  99.8% of it is forest (the white is forest).  And you know, not all old-growth is lost due to logging.  Much of it cycles due to forest fires etc.  That's why we have few 1,200-year-old trees.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#72 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:29 PM

This is due to logging.... 

 

One difference between clear-cutting and fire is that numerous standing dead trees usually remain after a fire. This is not so in a clear-cut where if trees are left they are scattered live trees. Dead trees reduce wind velocity and provide partial shade and habitat for some animals. Also, there are usually few patches of any species left within a clear-cut, particularly conifer species. Thus, there is less
chance for these types of trees to reseed the cut. The amount of above ground material removed from the site differs. With fire, some material is turned to ash and some leaves the site as gas and smoke. Particulate matter in the smoke mostly falls elsewhere in the forest.14 With clearcutting, more material leaves the site to be transformed into lumber, pulp and paper. When full-tree harvesting is used, trunk, top and branches are removed from the site. The advantage to leaving branches scattered over the site is that this material (which contains more nutrients than the trunk) eventually decays, then enriches and builds the soil. Whichever cutting method is used it is important to ensure that the time between harvests is long enough so that the nutrients and soils have time to rebuild to their former levels.27, 29 Conversely, logging tends to leave more soil material on the site than fire. Although this aids in the soil rebuilding process, heavy logging machinery often redistributes, ruts and compacts the soil.30, 31 Compaction is a problem because studies have shown that seedlings have greater difficulty growing in soils that have lost their natural aeration.29 In the Canadian boreal forest these problems can be somewhat mitigated if harvesting takes place when the soils are frozen.30 Over centuries one effect of the intense heat of wildfire is that rocks and boulders shatter and ultimately become soil.29 Logged sites that are rocky or have bedrock close to the surface do not gain this benefit. Severe fires also remove many fungi and insects, including tree pathogens, from the site. However, many microorganisms rapidly recolonize the site.29, 39 Finally, logging, unlike fire, requires roads. New roads, bring many impacts, including a change in the behaviour of some animals and greater hunting and fishing pressure.29

 

http://wildlandsleag...es, Logging.pdf



#73 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:43 PM

I see.  I'm not that concerned about animals in the deep wild, really.  Some figure it out, some don't, some die, some kill others, some that die feed others, and on top of that we shoot thousands of them every year. 

 

I mean, we have 500,000 or more deer in BC.   Am I concerned if we ruin some habitat and we lose 35?  No.  Sometimes, 35 less deer mean that 35 others do not die of starvation this next tough winter, etc.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#74 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:37 PM

Have you heard of the web of life?

#75 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:41 PM

Have you heard of the web of life?

 

Ya, it it was changing up, down, and all over long before white man got to this province.  I'm not sure why once we are here we need to stabilize it permanently.  I said a few posts back, the European Honey Bee we brought decimated many native bee species, I do not see us trying to reverse its use as "invasive".


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#76 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:00 PM

This is about taking some simple precautions such that a development does not destroy a sensitive habitat. Destroying it could lead to destruction of yet another spawning ground. This can lead to say a further reduction in fish or other wildlife.... That we harvest for economic gain. Yes, the economy is part of the web of life.... its not about freezing all development.

Edited by dasmo, 20 March 2017 - 05:06 PM.


#77 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:21 PM

We have 27,000 km of coastline in this province.  What 1,000 Saanich seaside residences do with the last 25 feet of their property above the high tide line is not going to make an iota of difference.  It's not like they want to pour raw sewage over the edge into the ocean from their lawn 24/7.  That's my point.  Saanich is moving to protect .00018519 of our BC coastline.   It's ridiculous and just goes to line the pockets of expert and bureaucrats, instead of staying in Saanich taxpayers pockets'.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#78 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:35 PM

Why don't you just spend all this time and effort submitting for a permit to build your shed? I'm sure you would get it....

#79 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:39 PM

Why don't you just spend all this time and effort submitting for a permit to build your shed? I'm sure you would get it....

 

Oh, I will be.  This is part of my background campaign to soften the defenses for when I submit my application.  It's very calculated.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#80 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,856 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:01 PM

That's untrue. The EDPA doesn't prevent people from developing, what it allows is consideration for the environment. So instead of building a 12 homes in a 1.5 acre parcel of land completely razing the natural area, maybe building 8 or 6 homes within it and trying to maintain a necessary corridor for habitat.

 

Great idea, at least superficially.

 

The Elkington Forest is perhaps the ideal of what you want.  Too bad it has a Walk Score of 0. 


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users