Tofino-based surfer Peter Devries rides the waves around the Great Bear Rainforest for the documentary about the area. Photograph by: Jeremy Koreski

Judith Lavoie, Times Colonist

When a couple of sea lions swam close to Chris Darimont as he was surfing, he realized that, with his wetsuit and surf board, he looked remarkably like a marine mammal.

That is when the idea came to Darimont, science director for the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, that there should be an opportunity for surfers to speak for the marine mammals of the Great Bear Rainforest and the threats they would face from oil tankers in northern B.C. waters if the Enbridge Gateway pipeline was approved…

Read the full story  http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Surfers+documentary+speaks+life/6068313/story.html#ixzz1ktM3meVB

Published: August 31, 2011

Broader public consultation and a thorough risk assessment are needed before a decision to increase the quantity of crude oil shipped through the southern Gulf Islands by more than 200 per cent by 2016 is made, says a group of concerned Gulf Islands residents and environmental organizations.

“The implications of these expansions are enormous both globally and locally, and the Salish Sea populace will be asked to bear the immediate risks with virtually no public engagement,” said Misty MacDuffee, a resident of North Pender Island and biologist with Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

National Energy Board commissioners are about to conclude discussions to determine how the group will proceed with Kinder Morgan Canada’s most recent application to increase the capacity along the Trans Mountain pipeline between Edmonton and the company’s Westridge Marine Terminal on Burrard Inlet from 300,000 barrels of oil per day to 380,000 barrels per day. That’s enough oil to fill the gas tanks of about 1.5 million average-sized cars each day.

By 2016, MacDuffee said, subsequent applications seek to increase that number to approximately 700,000 barrels per day.

To read the rest of this article please visit the Gulf Islands Driftwood website.

By Chris Genovali, Paul Paquet and Misty MacDuffee

With the conclusion of the international Marine Conservation Congress, recently held on Vancouver island, we cannot help but reflect on the current, and future, status of Canada’s Pacific coast.

Our unique coastal region is comprised of a fragile archipelago with a boundary between land and ocean that changes by the hour, by the season, and over the millennia. The fragmented island and inlet nature of this ecosystem, nourished by the waters of the North Pacific, sustain more diversity of plants, wildlife, and people than occurs elsewhere in North America. The distinct assembly of iconic animals such as whales, dolphins, wolves, and bears make the coast of British Columbia qualitatively different from most other exceptional places in the world. Notably, these mammals, together with another 120 species of birds, are tied to the sea.

To read the rest of this article please visit The Huffington Post website.

Citation: Williams, R.W., Erin Ashe  and Patrick D. O’Hara. 2011. Marine Mammals and Debris in Coastal Waters of British Columbia, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin.  In press.

Download the press release Marine Debris Press Release

Download the paper Williams_etal_MPB[2011]

by Paul C. Paquet and Chris Genovali, Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Although rarely considered, many human activities deprive wild animals of their life necessities by destroying or impoverishing their surroundings, causing suffering of individuals through displacement, stress, starvation, and diminished security. Yet, the notion that animal welfare applies to wildlife has escaped most people, including animal welfarists and conservationists alike.

In June 2010, Enbridge Inc. filed an application for its Northern Gateway Project with Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB). The proposed project includes twin pipelines running 1,172 kilometers (727 miles) over the rugged and geologically unstable Rocky and Coast Mountains between a tar sands refinery hub near Edmonton, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia. One of the lines would carry tar sands crude to Canada’s north Pacific coast for export to energy-hungry Asian and American markets.

To read the rest of this article, download the latest edition of the Island Tides.

By Paul Paquet and Chris Genovali

Although rarely considered, many human activities deprive wild animals of their life necessities by destroying or impoverishing their surroundings, causing suffering of individuals through displacement, stress, starvation, and diminished security. Yet, the notion that animal welfare applies to wildlife has escaped most people, including animal welfarists and conservationists alike.

In June 2010, Enbridge Inc. filed an application for its Northern Gateway Project with Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB). The proposed project includes twin pipelines running 1,172 kilometers (727 miles) over the rugged and geologically unstable Rocky and Coast Mountains between a tar sands refinery hub near Edmonton, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia. One of the lines would carry tar sands crude to Canada’s north Pacific coast for export to energy-hungry Asian and American markets. The other would import highly toxic petroleum condensate. Supertankers, each carrying up to two million barrels of the world’s dirtiest oil or condensate, would thread their way through precariously narrow channels to the open ocean while emitting tons of pollutants into the coastal environment.

To read the rest of this article, please visit The Huffington Post website.

What we do know is that marine garbage is ubiquitous and wreaking havoc at every level of the marine environment.

A new B.C. study estimates there are 36,000 pieces of “synthetic marine debris” — garbage the size of fists to fridges — floating around the coastline, from remote inland fiords to 150 kilometres offshore.

Of that, 49 per cent is Styrofoam or similar polystyrene products, 15 per cent plastic bottles, 10.5 per cent plastic bags and 6.3 per cent fishing gear. The rest of the garbage, slightly less than 20 per cent of the total, includes plastic, cardboard, wrappers, buoys, aluminum cans, and so on.

There are heavier concentrations of garbage in some places than in others — Victoria, Langara Island off northern Haida Gwaii, and the Cape Scott area of northern Vancouver Island, for example — perhaps due to ocean currents creating eddies that collect trash.

The study was conducted over three summers aboard the Raincoast Conservation Society’s 21-metre sailboat; visual sightings during line-transect surveys were combined with computer modelling to interpolate results for the entire coast.

The estimates do not include garage on beaches or unseen debris in the water column or ocean bottom.

“It’s the tip of the iceberg,” confirms Rob Williams, a researcher with the University of B.C. marine mammal research unit and lead author of the study, soon to be published in Marine Pollution Bulletin.

To read the rest of the story please vist the Vancovuer Sun at Ocean Garbage: Floating landmines.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Ocean+garbage+Floating+landmines/4460738/story.html#ixzz1HJ2K9vIu

March 11, 2011

Although rarely considered, many human activities deprive wild animals of their life necessities by destroying or impoverishing their surroundings, causing suffering of individuals through displacement, stress, starvation, and diminished security. Yet, the notion that animal welfare applies to wildlife has escaped most people, including animal welfarists and conservationists alike.

In June 2010, Enbridge Inc. filed an application for its Northern Gateway Project with Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB). The proposed project includes twin pipelines running 1,172 kilometres over the rugged Coast and Rocky Mountains between a oilsands refinery hub near Edmonton, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, BC. One of the lines would carry oilsands crude to the north coast for export to energy-hungry Asian and American markets. The other would import highly toxic condensate.

To determine if the project is in the public interest and should be allowed to proceed, the NEB is conducting hearings to assess the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline development. These are the supposed “three pillars of sustainable development”, but absent among the pillars is any consideration for the welfare of wild animals affected by the construction, presence, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline, or by the shipping of oil by supertankers. By using the faulty three legs of the stool as a model for sustainable development and decision making, the NEB perpetuates the myth that the environment is something apart from welfare of animals, humanity’s economy, and our social well-being. Humanity is once again placed outside the environment and the welfare of other species is completely ignored.

To read the rest of this article please visit the Vancouver Sun website.

Spring 2011

by Paul C. Paquet, Senior Scientist, Raincoast Conservation Foundation and Chris Genovali, Executive Director, Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Although rarely considered, many human activities deprive wild animals of their life necessities by destroying or impoverishing their surroundings, causing suffering of individuals through displacement, stress, starvation, and diminished security.  Yet, the notion that animal welfare applies to wildlife has escaped most people, including animal welfarists and conservationists alike.

In June 2010, Enbridge Inc. filed its application for the Northern Gateway Project with Canada’s National Energy Board. The proposed $5.5-billion project includes two parallel pipelines running 1,172 kilometres over the rugged Coast and Rocky Mountains between an oil sands refinery hub near Edmonton and the West Coast seaport of Kitimat, B.C.

One of the lines would carry oil sands crude to the Pacific coast for export to energy-hungry Asian markets. The other would bring in condensates, which are used to dilute heavy oil sands crude so it can flow more freely in pipelines. Super tankers, each carrying up to two million barrels of the world’s dirtiest oil or condensate, would thread their way through precarious coastal waters to the open ocean while emitting tons of pollutants into the coastal environment. Over time, catastrophic oil spills on land and water would be inevitable.

To determine if the project is in the public interest and should be allowed to proceed, the National Energy Board (NEB) is conducting hearings to assess the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline development.  These are the supposed “three pillars of sustainable development”, but absent among the pillars is any consideration for the welfare of wild animals affected by the construction, presence, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline, or by the shipping of oil by supertankers.  By using the faulty three legs of the stool as a model for sustainable development and decision making, the NEB perpetuates the myth that the environment is something apart from welfare of animals, humanity’s economy, and our social well-being.  Humanity is once again placed outside the environment and the welfare of other species is completely ignored.

Why is there no concern about the pain, fear, suffering and even death that wildlife will endure if the pipeline is approved?  It is largely because we place a higher priority on economic growth than on environmental health and the welfare of other species.  To date, the human enterprise has proceeded with inadequate moral guidance, characterized by a blatant disregard for non-human animals and the environment that sustains all species.  In general, one set of ecological and ethical principles has applied to humans and another to the rest of nature. Consequently, most of the cost of human dominion is being borne by other species.

The same human activities driving the current extinction crisis are also causing suffering, fear, physical injury, psychological trauma, and disease in wild animals.  These damages are well beyond and in addition to what might occur naturally. Human- caused environmental degradation and the associated suffering of animals should be of concern for conservationists and animal welfarists alike.  As a species we must garner the political will to exercise self–control and to show a bit of humility.

With the preliminary hearings having commenced for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Joint Review Panel on Enbridge Inc.’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the British Columbia coast, it would be illustrative for British Columbians to look south of the border.The company’s operations in the United States should be of particular interest to British Columbians in relation to the Northern Gateway project. In fact, odds are the recent Enbridge pipeline spill into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River is a harbinger of what BC can expect in terms of the inevitable accident if Northern Gateway is approved.

To read the rest of this article visit The Huffington Post website

September 10, 2010

With the preliminary hearings having commenced for the federal Joint Review Panel on Enbridge Inc.’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta’s tarsands to the B.C. coast, it would be illustrative to look south of the border.

The company’s operations in the U.S. should be of particular interest to British Columbians in relation to the Northern Gateway project.

To read the rest of this article visit the Vancouver Province website

Re: “Canadians protest Enbridge expansion plans” (Enquirer, Aug. 2), British Columbians should be paying close attention to the Kalamazoo River spill and its aftermath.Enbridge Inc., the company responsible for the Michigan disaster, wants to construct a twinned pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the north coast of British Columbia, where supertankers would ship the crude oil to hydrocarbon-hungry markets throughout the Pacific Rim.

In the push by Enbridge to foist their Northern Gateway pipeline on B.C., it’s clear that British Columbians and our magnificent north coast are considered nothing more than future collateral damage in Alberta’s fevered “black gold rush.”

British Columbians haven’t been falling for the hyperbole-filled Enbridge advertisements running across Canada trumpeting how their pipeline project will do everything from building sustainable communities to making our north coast safer for all marine traffic; the Kalamazoo River spill has only bolstered opposition to Northern Gateway.

Chris Genovali
Executive director
Raincoast Conservation Foundation
Sidney, British Columbia

Re: U.S. spill turns up heat on proposed B.C.-Alberta pipeline, July 29

With his “we’ll do whatever it takes to make things right” rhetoric, Enbridge Inc. CEO Patrick Daniel sounds remarkably like BP’s Tony Hayward. Oil-industry disaster-response talking points aside, British Columbians should be paying close attention to the Kalamazoo River and Gulf Coast spills and their aftermath. In Enbridge’s push to foist the Northern Gateway pipeline project on B.C., it’s clear we citizens and our magnificent north coast are nothing more than future collateral damage in Alberta’s fevered black-gold rush. However, British Columbians aren’t falling for the full-page Enbridge ads trumpeting how the Northern Gateway oil pipeline and its attendant supertankers will do everything from building sustainable communities to making our north coast safer for all marine traffic.

Chris Genovali

Executive director, Raincoast Conservation,

Sidney, BC

As B.C. experiences a bizarre season of wildlife-human conflicts, with a rare attack by a black bear and deer being demonized for attacking people and pets, a wildlife ecologist says people need to change.“Humans aren’t particularly good at modifying their behaviour to accommodate wild animals,” said Chris Darimont, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and research scientist with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation. “Humans have concluded we hold dominion over wild animals.”

But increasingly, humans are sharing space with mammals such as deer, who are in effect food migrants, following what Mr. Darimont refers to as “delicious things in gardens and lawns.” Unpleasant incidents occur when humans push the instinctive buttons that animals have for dealing with predators, Mr. Darimont said from his Victoria office.

One example occurred on July 20, when a woman in Victoria went for a walk with her medium-sized mutt and saw a doe with three fawns. She cautiously kept moving, but the doe charged and later stomped on her dog, who wasn’t badly injured. To the doe, the dog was a wolf, and thus a threat to her fawns, so naturally she displayed anti-predator behaviour, Mr. Darimont said.

“We don’t think of deer as aggressors,” he said. “We think of them as big-eyed creatures.” When they attack, it’s completely unexpected, eliciting a raw response that harkens back to human evolutionary memories of being both predator and prey, Mr. Darimont explained.

In Cranbrook, a doe attacked a dog in June, and earlier this month a newspaper carrier was left with a black eye after a deer encounter. The eastern B.C. community, as well as neighbouring Kimberly, are polling their residents to see what should be done, with a cull as one solution. In Victoria and Nanaimo, residents have also been calling for deer culls due to the damage the animals are doing to gardens.

According to Ministry of Environment spokesperson Angie Poss, a cull is only one method. Repellents, landscaping alternatives and fencing are other possibilities. Population reduction strategies such as capture-and-relocate programs and fertility-control strategies are other options.

But eliminating deer from urban settings won’t be easy, Mr. Darimont said. The easily accessible, nutritious food found in yards, along with a loss of predators, are sustaining urbanized deer.

“The only default is to modify our behaviour to avoid encounters,” he said. “Fence our gardens better, don’t let dogs approach deer.”

Other animals are also losing their natural habitats. A 2004 Journal of Bioscience study reported that in North America, grey wolves have lost 42 per cent of their range, cougars have lost 36 per cent, grizzly bears 53 per cent and black bears 39 per cent.

In the case of the recent black-bear attack, a Vancouver Island man had been sleeping outside under a tarpaulin near Port Alberni, even though a bear had been spotted around the campsite three days earlier when food was briefly left out.

“If the camper had knowledge of a bear hanging around in camp, it’s likely not a wise thing to be sleeping outside,” Mr. Darimont said. “If the bear was hanging around camp, that bear had access to food before the event occurred.”

The attack on the sleeping camper, which left the man with head wounds requiring plastic surgery, as well as other wounds, was only the second ever on Vancouver Island by a black bear that resulted in injury. Mr. Darimont suspects the male, 68-kilogram bear may have mistaken the man for a deer.

Calgary Herald, July 16, 2010

Edmonton Journal, July 18, 2010

Regarding the billboard ads urging Americans not to visit Alberta this summer, B.C. conservation groups might want to take a page from U.S. environmental organizations and adopt a similar campaign urging British Columbians to “rethink” travelling to Alberta.

As the Alberta government, oilsands industry and Enbridge Inc. attempt to shove the Northern Gateway pipeline down our throats in B.C., maybe it’s time we launched a boycott of our own. Why should British Columbians be willing to put our magnificent north coast at risk so that Alberta can reap profits from shipping “the world’s dirtiest oil” to Asian and American markets?

And sorry, we’re not falling for the full-page hyperbole-filled Enbridge advertisements in newspapers across B.C. trumpeting how Northern Gateway will solve unemployment, build sustainable communities and even make B.C.’s rocky north coast safer for all marine traffic.

Chris Genovali,

Sidney, B.C.