It is regrettable that the Dock Management Plan (DMP) was poorly written and inadequately structured. Its simplistic, one-size-fits-all approach to dock sizes fails to account for the varying characteristics of property sizes, foreshore lengths, and habitat conditions. A more rigorous, science-based methodology should have been employed, with dock size tailored to the specific foreshore dimensions— for instance, smaller foreshores could accommodate smaller docks, while larger foreshores could support larger ones. This approach mirrors the widely accepted "square footage ratio" used in other private property construction practices.
Furthermore, the DMP’s disregard for the specific marine habitats surrounding individual docks is concerning. This omission underscores the plan's lack of grounding in scientific research, despite its claims to the contrary. The relevant scientific data has yet to be shared with the community, which undermines the credibility of the plan. Additionally, the same science is being applied to both marine and freshwater environments, which, given their distinctly different ecologies and habitats, further highlights the flaws in this approach.
In light of these significant issues, the DMP appears to be a generic, one-size-fits-all policy imposed by an authority with questionable motivations, cloaked under the guise of environmentalism.
Maybe the First Nation should lead by example by removing the deep sea dock and gravel conveyor from their huge open pit operations, that they intend to expand after clear-cutting the adjacent land last year.
Sechelt First Nation’s deforestation and expanded gravel operations, including conveyance of product over the tidal zone to shipping barges, seems at odds with their plan to remove everyone else’s dock because of so-called sacred and environmental degradation to similar foreshore areas. Bringing this to light is quite the opposite of obfuscation. You, on the other hand, vainly try to cover up the cynical faux-stewardship involved.
It is regrettable that the Dock Management Plan (DMP) was poorly written and inadequately structured. Its simplistic, one-size-fits-all approach to dock sizes fails to account for the varying characteristics of property sizes, foreshore lengths, and habitat conditions. A more rigorous, science-based methodology should have been employed, with dock size tailored to the specific foreshore dimensions— for instance, smaller foreshores could accommodate smaller docks, while larger foreshores could support larger ones. This approach mirrors the widely accepted "square footage ratio" used in other private property construction practices.
Furthermore, the DMP’s disregard for the specific marine habitats surrounding individual docks is concerning. This omission underscores the plan's lack of grounding in scientific research, despite its claims to the contrary. The relevant scientific data has yet to be shared with the community, which undermines the credibility of the plan. Additionally, the same science is being applied to both marine and freshwater environments, which, given their distinctly different ecologies and habitats, further highlights the flaws in this approach.
In light of these significant issues, the DMP appears to be a generic, one-size-fits-all policy imposed by an authority with questionable motivations, cloaked under the guise of environmentalism.
Maybe the First Nation should lead by example by removing the deep sea dock and gravel conveyor from their huge open pit operations, that they intend to expand after clear-cutting the adjacent land last year.
Maybe you should deal with this issue, not the obfuscation you presented.
Sechelt First Nation’s deforestation and expanded gravel operations, including conveyance of product over the tidal zone to shipping barges, seems at odds with their plan to remove everyone else’s dock because of so-called sacred and environmental degradation to similar foreshore areas. Bringing this to light is quite the opposite of obfuscation. You, on the other hand, vainly try to cover up the cynical faux-stewardship involved.
Cite your proof I am open to seeing what you have to say. But prove it.
Here is something I wrote last year: https://thecoolerblog.substack.com/p/turtle-columbia
So you know, I don't own property on the Sunshine Coast, don't know anyone who lives there and haven't visited the area for at least 10 years now.
Any reply from the First Nations people?
I'm not published ... just post to basically no one on Substack. So, they would have no knowledge of my article.