Grizzly bear trophy hunting will be banned, for both resident and foreign hunters, if the NDP form the next provincial government, leader John Horgan promised Thursday.

The NDP is walking a fine line between meshing the party’s views with the 90 per cent of British Columbians who say they oppose the hunt and supporting rural voters who fear a grizzly hunting ban could affect food hunting.

There has been active discussion in caucus, but there was a general recognition of the tremendous opposition to the hunt from both rural and urban residents balanced by the need to reassure hunters that New Democrats are not anti-hunting, George Heyman, NDP environment spokesman said in an interview.

Horgan, describing grizzlies as an iconic species, carefully emphasized that sustenance hunting will not be affected and said B.C.’s heritage and its future can thrive if government makes the right choices.

“This province has a proud outdoor heritage that includes hunting and fishing. We also have a future that includes welcoming the world to enjoy our spectacular scenery and wildlife, creating jobs for British Columbians and a tourism industry that is second to none,” Horgan said at a Vancouver news conference.

Bear viewing creates more jobs and brings up to 12 times more in visitor spending than grizzly hunting, so the trophy hunt is affecting the economy by removing opportunities from the booming ecotourism sector, Horgan said.

Economic Importance of Keeping Grizzly Bears Alive in Great Bear Rainforest from Lonnie Wishart on Vimeo.

No one knows that better than Katherine MacRae of the Commercial Bear Viewing Association.

“A hunted bear can’t be a viewed bear,” she said.

“In recent years, the bear-viewing industry has seen double-digit growth, creating many good jobs in rural areas, but experience has shown that taking guests to view bears that are hunted just doesn’t work,” said MacRae, estimating that bear viewing brings in $13.1 million dollars annually in direct revenues and creates more than 200 jobs.

Environmental organizations and representatives of Coastal First Nations — who banned the trophy hunt in the Great Bear Rainforest four years ago — applauded the NDP move as a good first step to end the needless killing.

However, the question for many was whether grizzly hunting for meat would still be permitted under an NDP ban.

The vast majority of those hunting grizzlies do so for the hide, paws or head, but some resident hunters claim to eat the meat, even though it is generally avoided as it can carry the parasite that causes trichinosis.

B.C.’s grizzly hunt is not a subsistence hunt, it’s about bagging a trophy — a head for the wall or a rug for the floor, Wildlife Defence league campaign director Tommy Knowles said in a news release.

And the only way to end the unpopular hunt is a total ban that does not allow it to continue under the guise of a so-called meat hunt, he said.

At a Grizzly Bear Foundation hearing in Victoria last month, three hunters came forward to say they ate the meat, turning it into sausage or burgers.

It is a claim that provokes skepticism among hunt opponents and raises fears that there could be a loophole in an NDP ban.

“If hunting grizzlies for meat is to be allowed — and very few hunters eat grizzly bear –— tough regulations will need to be put in place to ensure that trophy hunting does not continue under a different guise,” MacRae said.

.@BCNDP Pledge to End B.C.'s Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunt if Elected https://t.co/v6k3eTXrSN #bcpoli #bcelxn17

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 25, 2016

Chris Genovali, executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation, a group that has purchased three commercial hunting tenures in the Great Bear rainforest, covering 32,000 square kilometres, said the group appreciates the NDP announcement, but is adamantly opposed to any “pretend-to-eat-the-meat” policy.

Heyman said that under an NDP government, the few people who say they hunt grizzlies for food will be eligible to get a hunting tag, but will be subject to regulations to ensure it is not an excuse for a trophy hunt.

That could mean surrendering the trophy parts of the animal or some other mechanism.

“We are not planning to leave loopholes in the banning of the trophy hunt. We are serious and we will put regulations in place to make it happen,” Heyman said.

“We will ensure that a food hunt is not used as a surrogate for the trophy hunt and we are serious about letting the bear viewing industry succeed and thrive.”

The NDP is planning to hold nation-to-nation discussions with Coastal First Nations to help them achieve their wildlife management and cultural practices goals and representatives of an NDP government would also meet with the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. to discuss compensation, Heyman said.

 “We understand when you affect people’s rights that they have held, governments then need to negotiate how you compensate for that,” he said.

Green Party leader Andrew Weaver has come out against the trophy hunt, but the B.C. Liberals show no sign that they will change the hunt.

The government says there is no need to end the hunt as the grizzly bear population is healthy with an estimated 15,000 bears — a number disputed by some scientists who say the population could be less than half that number.

The Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. is a generous contributor to the Liberal party and between 2011 and May 2015 the organization contributed almost $37,000 to the party.

Auditor General Carol Bellringer is looking into whether the government is managing the grizzly population and her report is expected next spring.

Photo credit: Mike Hoekendijk

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Part 1 of DeSmog Canada’s exclusive sit-down interview with Harry Swain, the man who chaired the panel tasked with reviewing BC Hydro’s Site C dam, sparked a firestorm of activity on Tuesday.

Energy Minister Bill Bennett responded to Swain’s critique in the Globe and Mail, the B.C. NDP issued a statement on Swain’s comments and an environmental law expert called the statements “unprecedented.”

Martin Olszynski, an assistant professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary, said Swain’s comments are extremely rare.

“To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a panel member has spoken about a previous report in this manner,” Olszynski, an expert in environmental assessment, said. “To my knowledge, it’s unprecedented.”

The concerns Swain raises are not unusual though, Olszynski pointed out.

“The course of actions taken by the B.C. and federal governments in this case are not atypical,” he said. “They very often will ignore, or pay only lip service to, the recommendations of their expert panels. If you talked to other people who have served on similar panels — if they were willing to talk — they might express similar frustration.”

Geothermal Recommendations for B.C. Ignored …. For 32 Years

Certainly, the issue of recommendations being ignored is a live one in the case of the 1,100-megawatt Site C dam proposed for the Peace River. The dam is facing six legal challenges, including one that alleges that Cabinet erred in dismissing key portions of the joint review panel’s findings on the project.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

But beyond that, one of the key issues the panel raised in its report was the B.C. government’s failure to follow a recommendation to investigate alternatives to the dam, particularly geothermal — a recommendation made 32 years ago by the B.C. Utilities Commission when it first turned down the Site C proposal.

“The province or the province and its wholly owned subsidiary BC Hydro should have taken to heart the admonitions of the utilities commission 32 years ago and done some of the basic work that would allow an industry to develop,” Swain told DeSmog Canada. “But they didn’t do it, so there we are.”

In speaking notes obtained by DeSmog Canada, the province prepares to deflect questions about why it hasn’t pursued geothermal.

“While geothermal energy has a role to play in British Columbia, it has been slow to develop and has not developed the track record to reliably meet today’s growing demand,” read the notes prepared for the government’s Site C announcement in December.

Asked what he makes of that statement, Swain responded: “Dereliction of duty.”

The B.C. government has the principal responsibility for lands and resources under the constitution, Swain said.

“And in that sense, the province owes — in my view — an obligation to the citizens of B.C. to do a lot of basic mapping and exploration,” he said. “I don’t think there’s a major resource industry in this country that didn’t start without governments doing some of the basic work.”

Canada is the only country around the Pacific Ring of Fire that does not produce geothermal power at a commercial scale.

Vast Amount of Data Available From Gas Drillers on Geothermal Potential

In the past three decades, technological advances have led to the discovery of even more geothermal potential in B.C. — including in the Peace Country, where the Site C dam is proposed.

“Up in the Peace, in the very strata that are being drilled for natural gas, there’s a lot of hot water,” Swain said. “Moreover, since the well logs of exploration and drilling companies are supposed to be deposited with the provincial government, there is a vast amount of information available. It was surprising to me that no attempt had been made to exploit that information.”

The challenge is that currently BC Hydro, the province’s crown energy corporation, is forbidden by law to involve itself in projects beyond big hydro and large transmission projects.

“All of the other production stuff is to come from the holy private sector,” Swain said.

To prevent future governments and panels from being “seriously uninformed” again, the panel recommended that, regardless of the decision taken on Site C, BC Hydro establish a research and development budget for the characterization of geographically diverse renewable resources.

“It’s probably fair to say that institutionally Hydro really, really wants to build this,” Swain said. “And that’s perfectly understandable. If you ask the Ford company, ‘what would you like to do?’ they’ll say ‘build cars.’ If you ask Boeing ‘what’s the solution to our transportation problems?’ they’ll say ‘airplanes.’ ”

The Canadian Geothermal Energy Association has argued geothermal can meet B.C.’s future energy needs at a lower cost than Site C with fewer environmental impacts. The association has called for a one-year moratorium on Site C to allow time for further due diligence on geothermal.

The LNG Wild Card: Inconsistency in Province’s Statements

One of the B.C. government’s go-to talking points on Site C has been that the dam is needed to power the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. In a Jan. 30th letter to the Peace River Regional District, Energy Minister Bill Bennett wrote that liquefied natural gas facilities would drive more electricity demand than the Joint Review Panel accounted for in its report (due to an addition error).

Swain says that, although there was an addition error in the report, it doesn’t change the conclusion: demand for the dam wasn’t proven.

“Given skepticism about LNG and about demand elasticity, I see no reason to modify the conclusion,” Swain said. “Frankly, I think their low-demand figure was probably overstated. So far there is no evidence that even their low usage scenario is likely to take place.”

Beyond that, if the province’s original LNG dreams had come to pass as quickly as they’d stated and if the plants had relied on grid electricity (two big ifs), that power would have been needed well ahead of Site C’s in-service date of 2024. A single LNG plant can require as much as 700 megawatts of electricity to run the giant compressors required to cool gas to 163 degrees below zero; at least 10 plants are proposed for B.C.’s coast, but it’s unclear whether any will come to fruition.

“If the initial scenario took place, the power demand would arise a long time before Site C could be built,” Swain said. “There really wasn’t a compatibility between the two statements of the province if you think of one statement about the development of the LNG industry and the second about the timeframe in which Site C was to be built. By their own story, they had an inconsistency.”

Site C Dam ‘No Ordinary Project’

About 20 B.C. local governments have asked the government to send Site C to the B.C. Utilities Commission to further investigate demand and costs — a recommendation made in the panel’s report and echoed by Swain in Part 1 of his interview with DeSmog Canada.

With a price tag of $8.8 billion, Site C would constitute the largest expenditure of public money in B.C. history.

“Site C is not an ordinary project,” the panel wrote in its report.

Swain said British Columbians should pay attention because “it’s going to effect them in the pocket book,” “destroy valuable bits of landscape” and “affect the constitutionally protected rights of First Nations.”

He suggested British Columbians consider the dam in light of the alternatives.

“Have we really pushed conservation and efficiency as far as they can go? And the answer is no,” he said. “What other kinds of generation or energy production are available and what are their costs and benefits?”

Swain called B.C.’s refusal to consider its entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty “inexplicable” and noted the verdict is still out on how British Columbians will react to electricity prices going up 30 per cent in the next three years (demand could decrease, for example).

Ultimately, the way forward needs to be one that considers all the options, not just large hydro dams.

“The province has defined the role of Hydro as being very limited,” Swain said. “If this were not the BC Hydro company, but simply … the ‘energy company’ whose job it was to make sure that demand was satisfied at reasonable prices regardless of source, regardless of who got to build and own, regardless of those kinds of extraneous considerations, we might have a more balanced view.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Snow is flying in the Jumbo Valley, covering both the rapidly constructed foundations of a ski lift and day lodge and the campsite where, throughout the summer, opponents have monitored activities at the site of a proposed all-season ski resort centred around four glaciers in the heart of the Kootenays.

For now, it’s a waiting game — no surprise to the many players on both sides of the controversial proposal who have been involved throughout the 24-year saga.

Glacier Resorts Ltd. is hoping the foundations, built in October, will prove to the provincial Environmental Assessment Office that significant progress has been made on construction of the billion-dollar proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

In 2004 the company was granted an environmental assessment certificate with 195 conditions. The certificate was renewed in 2009 and, under legislation, cannot be renewed again. For the certificate to become permanent, Glacier Resorts must show that the project was “substantially started” by Oct. 12.

Three days before that deadline, the Environmental Assessment Office wrote to Glacier Resorts saying the company was not in compliance with three pre-construction conditions, primarily relating to water quality and fish habitat monitoring. However, the warning about non-compliance does not have any direct bearing on the decision about whether the project has made significant progress, said an Environment Ministry spokesman.

The term “substantially started” is not defined in legislation. The Environmental Assessment Office will make a recommendation to Environment Minister Mary Polak, who will make the final decision.

“There is no set timeframe in which the minister must make the determination about whether a project was substantially started by the deadline,” said the ministry spokesman.

Until a decision is made, it is not only the weather that has put a stop to construction. The company has been warned not to continue work until a decision is made, although restoration work on the non-compliance problems is allowed.

Mountain Guide Critical of Construction 'Rush Job'

A 10-centimetre snowfall in the Jumbo Valley means the “concrete slab” foundations are “out of sight, but not out of mind,” said retired mountain guide Arnor Larson, a tireless opponent of the resort proposal.

Larson has submitted a document and photos to the Environmental Assessment Office raising questions about the “unusual” quality of the foundation work on the day lodge and ski lift.

“Rush jobs often mean cutting corners, but it was still a surprise that, throughout the area covered by the forms, the ground was never properly leveled and compacted, nor was the necessary topping layer of fine aggregate material ever installed, leveled or compacted,” he wrote.

“Believing in foundations that have no foundation is like something out of Alice In Wonderland.”

Foundation for Day Lodge Adjacent to 'Avalanche Meadow'

Larson, armed with pages of photos and documentation, also has serious concerns with the location of the day lodge.

“As a professional mountain climbing guide since 1970, I stood there and had a thought that went like this — in the winter, when avalanche conditions are ripe, I would find the risk too high to set up my tent here for even one single night. Yet they are going to erect a permanent building here,” he said.

“Who the heck signed the paper saying this was a safe place to build?”

Larson pointed out in his submission that the site of the day lodge has changed from the original plans and the lodge doors at the new site would open on to “the aptly named Avalanche Meadow.” It is an area where, in 2009, a massive avalanche tore down a ski run.

The resort’s Master Plan calls for avalanche control measures, such as helicopter bombing potential avalanche sites, but critics such as renowned Canadian mountaineer and photographer Pat Morrow, who lives in the East Kootenays, does not believe the area can be made safe.

“As you get further and further into the proposed townsite, you are getting further and further into avalanche territory,” he said.

“No other resorts have base areas that are threatened as much as this.”

NDP Leader John Horgan Says Day Lodge in Class 4 Avalanche Zone

Growing concerns about building a day lodge adjacent to an avalanche path — even though proponent Oberto Oberti has said the buildings will be just outside the high-risk area — were taken up this week in Question Period by NDP leader John Horgan.

Jumbo Glacier Resort specifically committed to building residential and commercial structures outside avalanche zones, Horgan said.

“Yet the Jumbo Glacier Resort has put the only foundation that they’ve been able to pour to this point in time, their day lodge, right in a Class 4 avalanche zone,” he said.

“For the minister’s edification, a Class 4 avalanche zone is really, really bad. In fact, it says ‘a Class 4 could destroy a railway car, large truck, several buildings and forests up to four hectares.’ It’s a big deal.”

However Polak, who recently visited the area and met with the Ktunaxa First Nation, rejected calls from Horgan for her to immediately withdraw the permit.

“It is very important that we allow the process to unfold, that we allow First Nations to respond appropriately, providing us with that information,” she said.

Robyn Duncan of Wildsight, a non-profit group that has led much of the opposition to the proposal, said Wildsight has been working with Ecojustice to make last-minute submissions to the Environmental Assessment Office and, if the Jumbo Resort project gets the go-ahead or, if there is an attempt to again extend the certificate, a legal challenge might be considered.

The proposal is already being challenged by the Ktuxana First Nation, which is appealing a B.C Supreme Court decision that the consultation was reasonable and the resort would not substantially interfere with Ktunaxa spiritual beliefs and practices. The area in which the resort is planned is known to the Ktunaxa as Qat’muk, the place where the Grizzly Bear Spirit was born, goes to heal itself and returns to the spirit world.

The West Kootenay EcoSociety is also challenging the incorporation of the Jumbo Glacier Mountain Resort Municipality, a municipality with no residents which is being supported with taxpayer dollars.

Others who have taken part in the annual protest and monitoring camps are watching carefully and are ready to spring into action again if it proves necessary.

“I have been working to keep Jumbo Wild for over 15 years,” said KL Kivi, who spent much of her summer at the monitoring camp.

“This is the largest unroaded wilderness in southern B.C. and our lives are inextricably linked to the health of this place. It would fracture the spine of an incredibly important ecological region,” she said.

Tommaso Oberti, vice president of Pheidias Project Management, who has acted as spokesman for previous stories, did not respond to questions.

However, a letter written by Oberto Oberti, on behalf of Glacier Resorts, to Jumbo Municipality Mayor Gregory Deck, underlines his confidence that the project will go ahead.

“In the most unlikely event that physical and legal disruptions do not permit the start of construction, the government will have an obligation to extend or remove the deadline, as in any construction case of force majeure,” he wrote in February.

“I am certain that, in this case, Glacier will seek legal advice and legal routes to ensure that its rights are not compromised.”

Photo: Lucas Jmief, Lucasimagephoto.ca

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.