12 July 2017

Summertime dos and don’ts at Vancouver parks and beaches

$500 fines can be issued for not butting out properly

/ Vancouver Courier
June 27, 2017 04:12 PM

Barbecues are a go, but smoking and campfires are a definite no.

In light of the extended daylight and impending dog days of summer, the Courier reached out to the Vancouver Park Board and Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services to get a sense of the dos and don’ts as they relate to beaches, parks and other gathering places in Vancouver.
The first rule is simple: butt out properly, thoroughly and appropriately no matter where you are. Vancouver Fire Services Capt. Jonathan Gormick said smoking-related fires have been one of the primary concerns for fire crews during summer months year after year.

The most recent stats from smoking-related fires from between 2011 and 2014 point to losses of $5.2 million in 2013 and $1.4 million in 2011. By comparison, damage caused by barbecue fires reached its highest in 2014, costing $1.3 million.

“If you’re in a vehicle, put them in the ashtray. If you’re out in public, I know the city has hundreds, if not thousands, of cigarette receptacles for appropriate disposal,” Gormick said. “There’s absolutely no reason to be tossing them in any kind of vegetation. The potential for damage is so large.”

The ongoing problem prompted fire officials to successfully lobby council in mid-May to have $500 penalties issued to anyone who chucks a butt inappropriately: near a boulevard, planter or on to dry grass or vegetation, for example. No such fine existed previously, outside of penalties for littering. The park board fine for smoking at beaches or in parks is $250.

Like those with the park board, Gormick said compliance via a warning is always the preferred method. But with three sizeable greenspaces — Stanley, Queen Elizabeth and Everett Crowley parks — adjacent to residential areas, the need for fines was magnified.

“It’s certainly not the road we thought we would have to go down,” he said. “2015 was a huge problem. We thought all the educational messages and campaigns would stop it, but it just continued and continued.”

Campfires in parks and at beaches are also a full-fledged, full stop. They’re not allowed in any case and anyone found to be burning in those spaces can be fined between $50 and $2,000, depending on the location and severity of the fire.

Park board superintendent of citywide services Chad Cowles said the fine amount, or if one is even issued to begin with, is at the discretion of the park ranger or bylaw officer in instances of campfires or smoking.

If the guilty party claims to not know the bylaw and is compliant, a verbal warning is issued. Egregious examples Cowles cited that would trigger a fine included smoking marijuana near an elementary school or tossing a butt onto dry vegetation.

“If the person is compliant… they butt out, they put the cigarette in an appropriate location to discard it, we’ve gained compliance and that’s what we’re looking for,” he said.

Regulations around barbecuing are fairly lenient, provided that extreme fire alerts are not in place. In those instances, charcoal barbecues aren’t permitted.

Firing up the grill is best done in a designated picnic area, on a raised picnic table that has concrete underneath it to soak up any residual fuel. Picnic tables aren’t a hard and fast requirement though.

“Generally [barbecues] aren’t welcome on the beach, but open meadow spaces, open green areas, as long as they’re not tinder dry and the fire hazard is below extreme, then a person could have a self-contained barbecue anywhere in the park, essentially,” Cowles said.

As a point of precaution, Gormick recommends having a fire extinguisher nearby at all times regardless of the barbecue setting. If the grilling gets out of hand, and it’s safe to do so, the cook should close the lid and turn to the fuel supply.

“If not, just get to a safe spot and call 911,” Gormick said.


© 2017 Vancouver Courier

07 July 2017

Park Acquisition Strategy & 3030 Victoria Drive

July 7 2017
Vancouver's John Hendry Park 
The Vancouver Park Board and City of Vancouver have mutual goals of a healthy city, active living, and ensuring all residents have access to green space a short walk from home. This is particularly important in dense, urban areas with multi-family housing where many residents rely on parks as their “yards”.

Many of our neighborhoods are park-deficient. Increasing population and densification increases the vulnerability of these park-deficient neighborhoods. To ensure that all residents have equitable access to green space, the Vancouver Park Board works with the City on a long-range property-acquisition strategy to acquire sites for future park development and expansion.

Green spaces are result of careful property acquisition


Many of our much loved parks and green spaces – English Bay, Emery Barnes, Point Grey Road – have been developed by thoughtful assembly of private and commercial property over many decades.

We have had recent success with this strategy in the opening of several well used neighborhood parks, as a result of foresight and planning and careful property acquisition for green space. Lillian To Park at 17th and Yukon and the park at 6th and Fir are two such recent examples.

On occasion the assembly of necessary parcels takes many years, and in these cases the City makes the property available for rental. We currently have people living in properties designated as future parks in the Renfrew Ravine and China Creek neighborhoods.

City and Park Board working on future expansion of John Hendry Park


Recently there have been reports surrounding a property at 3030 Victoria Drive purchased by the City in 2016 for the future expansion of John Hendry Park, commonly known as Trout Lake. The property backs onto the park. The property purchase and demolition was approved by City Council at an in-camera meeting last year, as is standard and prudent for real estate transactions involving public funds. If City interest is disclosed, prices could become inflated, thus the requirement for confidentiality.

At the time the property at 3030 Victoria Drive was purchased, it was believed adjacent properties may become available in the near future. This has not materialized. It was never our intention to see this property remain empty for 18 months, pending a “green” demolition.

The Park Board Property Acquisition Strategy has identified Grandview Woodlands/Cedar Cottage as a park-deficient neighborhood. The community was consulted about the future expansion of the park in the John Hendry Master Planning Process.

We are in the process of assessing our options for 3030 Victoria Drive, which include working with housing agencies for short-term rental of this property.

Media contact:
Park Board Communications 

30 June 2017

Canada Day Pot Protest to Take Place in Downtown Park Despite Lack of Permit

Vancouver Park Board
Information Bulletin
June 30, 2017

Organizers of the annual July 1 Cannabis Day protest are going ahead with a rally at Thornton Park this Saturday despite objections from the Vancouver Park Board. The Park Board repeatedly urged organizers to seek a more suitable site than a park which is heavily used and adjacent to Vancouver’s Pacific Central Station.    
As with any unpermitted event or protest, the priority of the Park Board and the City is the health and safety of all protest participants and the general public. On the day of the event,  Park rangers will monitor Thornton Park along with the many other events taking place in our parks on Canada Day. Vancouver Police officers will be on-site to manage traffic and keep the peace.
The Cannabis Day protest is being organized by Cannabis Culture who also host the annual 4/20 marijuana protest which has attracted more than 30,000 participants in recent years. Saturday’s event is expected to attract a few thousand people.
Cannabis Culture says the protest will take place on the south side of Thornton Park between noon and 8 pm.
Vancouver Park Board

23 June 2017

Wilderness Committee mourns the passing of Gwen Barlee

For Immediate Release - June 23 2017 

VANCOUVER – The Wilderness Committee is deeply saddened by the passing of Gwen Barlee, one of Canada’s leading environmental advocates. Barlee worked as the Wilderness Committee National Policy Director since 2001. She was an invaluable member of the organization’s executive leadership from early on, guiding the organization through many hard-fought environmental campaigns.

Gwen was a strong leader, and a tireless activist for social change. Over the past 16 years, Gwen distinguished herself as an extraordinarily talented and determined defender of Canadian wild nature – especially in her home province of BC. She showed a passion beyond compare for the defence of the land and the species that call it home. She was a YWCA Women of Distinction nominee in 2016.

“Gwen was a hero and a mentor. She was one of the most compassionate people you’ll ever meet – when it came to wildlife, animals, creatures of all kind,” said Joe Foy, Campaign Director for the Wilderness Committee.

She was a fierce defender of species at risk. Gwen laboured for years to push the case for standalone endangered species legislation for British Columbia. She was instrumental in convincing the BC government to set aside tens of thousands of hectares of land for the protection of the northern spotted owl – one of Canada’s most endangered species. She continued to call for an even greater amount of protected forest habitat, not just for the spotted owl but for other species at risk including BC’s southern mountain caribou, marbled murrelet and goshawk.

“Gwen was a fearless defender of the public good and that was reflected in the environmental policies she advocated for,” said Foy.

Gwen fought for the establishment and protection of provincial and national parks. She helped stop government plans to put large private resorts in provincial parks. She was a ferocious defender of wild rivers since the mid-2000s against the government's policy of giving them away for private power projects. She helped mobilize thousands of BC residents to protect the Upper Pitt Watershed, Bute Inlet rivers and Glacier and Howser Creeks from industrial power projects.

What distinguished Gwen as an environmental advocate was her research ability and her commitment to enhancing government accountability, upholding the right for British Columbians to scrutinize government activities and promoting transparent, fair and inclusive decision-making through filing freedom of information (FOI) requests.

She worked hard to create unique alliances of people and facilitate a common vision for coming together on an environmental issues – whether working with union leaders, park rangers, First Nations communities, beekeepers or kayakers, she was committed to working with people who loved BC’s spectacular wilderness and wildlife.

“Gwen shaped the place that we live in today. She was born and raised here, surrounded by nature in the South Okanagan-Similkameen, her father was an NDP MLA so she was raised around politics,” said Foy. “She believed we as British Columbians had the right – and the responsibility – to stand up for this place and say what was needed. And she did just that.”

The Wilderness Committee will announce a celebration of Gwen’s life and achievements soon.

Joe Foy | National Campaign Director, Wilderness Committee
604-880-2580, joe@wildernesscommittee.org

18 June 2017

Opinion: VSB trustees accountable for toxic work environment

by Janet Fraser
Published on: June 15, 2017 Vancouver Sun

With the recent resignation of the Vancouver school board (VSB) superintendent I’ve been asked, “What was really going on at the VSB? I don’t know what to believe.”

Looking back at the trustees’ behaviour I witnessed and reading the two investigation reports, I believe VSB staff were bullied and harassed. As a newly elected trustee, I stepped into a pre-existing board dynamic that I found overly partisan and very challenging to work in, and didn’t fully realize the impact of trustees’ behaviour on staff.

Trustees have the right to ask hard questions, and should do so to better serve the district’s students, but along with that right is the responsibility to ensure that all employees have a safe and respectful work environment.

The WorkSafe B.C. report gives four specific examples of inappropriate conduct or comments that a trustee reasonably ought to have known would cause staff to be humiliated or intimidated, and were seen as bullying and harassment. The Goldner report accepts that relentless and aggressive questioning created a culture of fear in which staff dreaded their attendance at meetings, where they would be expected to report to the board, particularly if they knew that their recommendations wouldn’t be well-received.

Some former trustees have minimized the reports’ findings. However, I see that the actions of the board and trustees that I observed were accurately reported (with one exception, the WorkSafe B.C. report says a motion requesting revisions to the school-closure reports was passed when it was referred), I have no reason to doubt that investigators accurately reported witness statements, and the conclusions that VSB staff were bullied and harassed are clearly laid out.

Trustees are elected by the public and should be held publicly accountable for their actions. For both investigation reports I asked that any reference to me be made public and I’m mentioned once in each report as part of the sequence of events. I’m never named as a trustee with inappropriate behaviour.
However, as one of the board’s nine trustees I do accept a degree of responsibility for the overall VSB work environment and with hindsight I regret that I didn’t try to curb other trustees’ disrespectful behaviour, especially in public meetings. I continue to suggest that all former trustees agree to have their information made public in both investigation reports, so we can all be held accountable for our actions.

The probes found that the school-closure process was a key issue. In May 2016, trustees voted unanimously to direct staff to prepare a list of schools for possible closure. I voted to consider school closures not because I wanted to close schools, but because our district was facing a financial crisis; $22 million in cuts to balance the next year’s budget and an anticipated $15 million in cuts the year after. In September, trustees voted unanimously for 11 of the 12 listed schools to move forward to the closure-consultation process before the process was suspended in October.
The school-closure process was carried out at the direction of the board. There is no justification for a trustee to say to staff at the well-attended September board meeting, “See what you guys have created here. Look at this, you guys created all of this.”

Since the school-closure process was suspended, implementation of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling has required additional funding, as well as more classrooms in many schools, but the financial crisis remains — this year’s balanced budget has $2 million in cuts, and, over the next four years, a deficit of $27.5 million is anticipated.

It’s clear that a respectful relationship between an elected board and VSB staff must be established and this should be top of mind for anyone thinking of becoming a candidate in the next election. There are many difficult decisions ahead for our district, including balancing budgets, use of space in schools and achieving seismic upgrades, and Vancouver’s students need to have effective trustee leadership to best support their learning.

Janet Fraser was elected as a Green trustee in the 2014 Vancouver school board election and ran for MLA as the B.C. Green candidate in Vancouver-Langara.

11 June 2017

Opinion: Cetaceans do not belong in aquariums

Catherine Evans
Vancouver Sun June 10, 2017

It is perfectly legitimate to debate the ongoing relevance of established democratic institutions, and I — as an elected Vancouver park board commissioner — welcome constructive criticism of our deliberations and decisions.

To suggest, however, as The Vancouver Sun has done in a recent editorial, that the park board be abolished because of its recent vote to expand the ban on displaying cetaceans in Stanley Park is to ignore mounting public, scientific and ethical considerations.

For the past several decades, the park board has provided a public forum for Vancouver’s residents to debate the captivity and display of whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Elected commissioners representing Vancouverites from across the political spectrum have sought opinions from citizens, the scientific community, and the Vancouver Aquarium on many, many occasions.

The most recent and decisive debate, however, was a surprise. Given what was assumed about the makeup of the current park board, I for one, did not expect to see the issue on the agenda. But that was before the deaths of the belugas Aurora and Qila at the end of 2016 and the death of Jack the harbour porpoise in August 2016. With these deaths, the ethical issues surrounding the aquarium’s practice of holding cetaceans in captivity came roaring back.

In March, the park board held two open public meetings. There was passion and science on both sides — as there usually is in major moral debates. We heard presentations from over 60 speakers. Many brought or referenced research papers. At the end of those meetings, the park board voted unanimously to develop a bylaw to expand the 2001 orca ban to include all cetaceans.

This bylaw was drafted and then debated on May 15. Board members agreed that it should exempt the cetaceans housed in Stanley Park from the ban. The bylaw passed by a vote of 6-1.

The timing of the bylaw is significant. The Vancouver Aquarium was planning to start a major expansion of its tanks to house some or all of the five or six belugas it has loaned out to aquariums in the United States, largely for breeding purposes. Passing the bylaw now allows the aquarium to rethink its expansion and move in a direction that is more sustainable over the long term.

There is a mistaken assumption in some quarters that the park board became captive to a small group of activists. This does not bear scrutiny. We are far from homogeneous with three political parties and one independent around the table. And it is not a small group that believes the time of cetacean captivity is over. There are some passionate activists to be sure, but we also received correspondence from nearly 15,000 individuals in support of the bylaw.
We have also had letters opposed to our decision and I have read them carefully. Most are worried about the ability of the aquarium to continue its work in the rescue and rehabilitation of sea mammals. While some writers express a personal unease about the display of captive cetaceans, they believe that the ban on displaying cetaceans in Stanley Park is a serious threat to future rescue efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Aquarium’s Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre is not in Stanley Park. The aquarium is free to bring whatever animals it wants into its Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre. Historically, this has been around 99 per cent harbour seals, almost all of which are released.

The fact is that there have been only six cetaceans brought into the rescue centre since 2011. Five were harbour porpoises, one a false killer whale. Of the five porpoises, three died, one was treated and released (the only cetacean to ever be released from the rescue centre) and one, Jack, was brought into the aquarium in 2011 as an infant. He died there in 2016.

The false killer whale, Chester, was brought into the aquarium as an infant in 2014.  He lives there with Daisy, a harbour porpoise rescued as an infant in 2008, and Hana, a Pacific white-sided dolphin, caught in fishing nets and transferred from an aquarium in Japan.
The aquarium knows from its own public opinion polling that their rescue and rehabilitation program is widely supported. They also know that support for the display of captive cetaceans has dropped significantly and is now well below the 50 per cent mark. Blurring the lines between the two has been the goal of the public relations campaign they have been engaged in for the past month.

No one is questioning the opinion of Fisheries and Oceans Canada that the cetaceans currently held by the aquarium should not be released. But I am surprised more people do not see the conflict of interest in the aquarium’s position. After the aquarium agreed to stop importing wild caught cetaceans in 1996, their only real source of cetaceans for use in their shows has been through rescue and breeding. The latter has largely failed, and the former, while it saved three wild infant cetaceans from imminent death, condemned them to a lifetime (a short lifetime in Jack’s case) of unnatural social interactions in an artificial and confined environment.

Nobody likes being told what to do. The aquarium may feel like this is what has happened. But, they won’t change of their own volition. Like other zoos and aquariums that have changed the way they deal with animals, the Vancouver Aquarium has always been backed into making changes. It is public opinion that is driving this change, expressed in this instance by the decision of a publicly-elected body with legislative authority over what animals may be brought into Vancouver parks.

It would have been better for the aquarium to have got ahead of the park board on this decision as it did with the wild caught ban in 1996. They then could boast as do many other very successful and popular aquariums that they do not hold captive cetaceans. And they could create a terrific educational program explaining why it is wrong to keep these complex, social, far-ranging and deep-diving wild animals in small enclosures.

I hope they come around to this understanding and do not waste money on litigation. They could use the money they may spend fighting the cetacean ban in court so much better. For example, they could collaborate with Vancouver’s digital community to wow their visitors with a technological experience of the majesty of cetaceans in the wild.
It’s time for the Vancouver Aquarium to move on and once again be applauded around the world, without reservation, for its leadership in understanding and caring for oceanic animals.

• Catherine Evans is a Vision Vancouver commissioner elected to the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation.

17 May 2017


A thoughtful piece I found on Facebook.

Let me tell you about a dolphin. Spinnaker (or "Spin" as he was sometimes known) was a dolphin that was kept at Vancouver Aquarium during the 90's.

But the story actually doesn't start with Spin, it starts with Whitewings. Many decades earlier, Whitewings was captured in Baha, Mexico by people working for Marineland of the Pacific.

Soon after she was transferred to the Vancouver Aquarium. Whitewings spent many years alone in Vancouver, with no other dolphins to socialize with. As we learned more about cetaceans, modern animal care standards were updated to require that aquariums house cetaceans with conspecifics (other animals of the same species).

And that's where dolphin Spinnaker comes in. Spinnaker was acquired from Kaiyukan Aquarium in Osaka, Japan. (Japan is infamous for the drive hunt, more on that later.) Spinnaker was brought to Vancouver to keep company for lonely dolphin Whitewings. Unfortunately, Whitewings was old and she died just one year after Spinnaker's arrival.

So now VanAqua had the same problem: another lonely dolphin. This time they brought in THREE new dolphins: Helen, Hana, and Laverne. Helen and Hana were purchased from Enoshima Aquarium in Japan. (Enoshima Aquarium is an ardent supporter of the dolphin drive hunt. Not sure what that means? Watch "The Cove" documentary. The drive hunt is brutal to dolphins.) In fact, Helen and Hana were actually imported illegally, in contravention of the aquarium's agreement with the Park Board.

But then Laverne died in 2009, Spinnaker died in 2012, and Hana died in 2015. And now we're back to having one lonely dolphin: Helen. And Helen wasn't even rescued on the BC coast.

This is the trouble with "rescuing" cetaceans. There are two rescues at the Aquarium right now: Daisy the harbour porpoise and Chester the false killer whale. But they aren't of the same species, or even the same family. Chester and Helen sort of get along because a false killer whale is a kind of dolphin, but Daisy has no other porpoises to socialize with.

So what happens now? What happens when one of those three cetaceans dies? Maybe they live out the rest of their lonely lives in this aquarium. Maybe they get transferred to another aquarium where they can live with conspecifics. Or maybe Vancouver Aquarium begins to collaborate with marine biologists and vets who support development of a large seaside sanctuary that would be an ideal home for retired and rescued cetaceans.

What should we do with rescued cetaceans who can't survive in the wild? If we're going to intervene with nature to rescue them, we owe them an appropriate habitat with room to swim in a straight line, with conspecifics that they can form social bonds with, and without being made to do shows three times a day. That's the obligation we take on when we decide to perform a rescue operation.