Connect with Us
Letters: Summerland ALR priceless
Summerland ALR priceless
I am deeply disturbed by the proposal of Summerland’s city council to turn a large portion of our community’s prime agricultural land into a housing development.
Seeing such vivid images of the extreme drought California is battling is a wake-up call for all of us. We are heavily dependent on imported food, which makes us vulnerable. Especially in the face of the increasingly common weather extremes that are occurring worldwide.
Here in Summerland we are in the very fortunate position of still having enough premium farmland to actually be able to sustain ourselves to a large degree, if need be. This is an irreplaceable source of security for our community’s future. And we need to first and foremost protect this precious commodity: our prime farmland.
It is crucial that we consider the big picture instead of simply short-term gains. What good will this proposed development be to our children if they no longer have the resources necessary to feed themselves?
The land in danger of being lost to us was included in the ALR for an important reason: it is prime agricultural land, it is flat, arable and highly productive, with growing conditions that are uniquely in our favour.
I implore the Summerland mayor and council, in addition to B.C.’s Agricultural Land Commission, to consider our collective future, and safeguard the foundation of our community.
Is province on board with cull?
I an neither in favour of nor opposed to the suggestion that the Deer population in our residential area be culled. That should be left to the provincial ministry responsible for wildlife management.
With that said, I have not seen any indication the province has approved the position of our local council to spend $15,000 to relocate the deer in our area.
My understanding from previous problems with wildlife coming into residential areas to feed is that the provincial biologists do not agree with moving these animals out of the area. Has this changed?
Does the city have approval of the province to conduct this move?
I, for one, would like to hear from the province on their position on this. If they agree to the move then I would hope that in the future they would stop killing the bears and cougars and relocate them as well.
Leave deer alone
So, our city council in their wisdom have had an epiphany to deal with the so called deer problem. Simply team up with our local native band — problem solved.
Poor Chief Kruger. Spending $60 in gas only to have an unsuccessful hunt. So few deer available for cultural needs. So sad.
Now, has anyone clued into why Mr. Kruger and other stewards of the environment have not been able to find any deer? Could it possibly be because they’ve already shot most of them?
Does a deer problem actually exist? At best they’re an annoyance, but a problem that needs draconian measures, definitely not. Are they a danger to life and limb? Certainly not, unless you act without any common sense.
So what it actually boils down to is the matter of certain individuals complaining about the deer nibbling their shrubs.
Now ask yourselves, just how did the many generations of orchardists ever manage to survive and prosper if it was a insurmountable problem?
In any case, to those of you who chose Penticton for it’s natural attractions, I say welcome home. To those who cannot appreciate the nature of the area and expect taxpayers to solve your nature problem, I say get off your butts and use the multitude of deer prevention options available or alternately move to a denizen-free area, possibly Toronto.
I say to city council, stop this nonsensical idea, save taxpayers money, leave the deer alone.
Alcohol should be banned
(re: Flavoured cigarettes not an option, Letters, Western News, Feb. 7)
You want a ban on flavoured tobacco.
Well, by omission then, you must be contemplating the increased distribution of, marketing of, and access by minors to flavoured alcohol.
Using your numbers, 10.8 per cent of the 2.2 million youths aged 15-19 have tried smoking in the last year, which represents 237,600 youths.
Of that number, 61 per cent tried flavoured tobacco, which means 144,936 tried flavoured tobacco.
On the other hand, 70.8 per cent of youth have tried, and drink, alcohol. In other words, 70.8 per cent of 2.2 million is 1,557,600. Of that, 100 per cent have tried flavoured alcohol.
By those numbers, youth are 10 times more likely to drink flavoured alcohol than ever pick up a flavoured tobacco item. Interesting choice of battle, ladies.