Boat Motor Theft

A motor was stolen from a boat docked on Water Street this past weekend. Be sure to lock up your boats and equipment, and continue to report any suspicious activity to the Logan Lake RCMP.

Suspicious Truck on the Gus

Occasionally motorized vehicles appear on the Gus Johnson trail. On Saturday a pick-up truck appeared at the top of the Gus close to Lookout Road. The driver, a young male, claimed that he hadn't seen any signs along the way about motorized vehicles being prohibited. He was accompanied by a young female and they had driven in from Rossmore Lake. 

They may have been lost, but what was suspicious was that the truck had no license plates. 

Any other reports about this vehicle?

Be Bear Aware

Photo by Peter Sulzle http://petersulzle.zenfolio.com/

Lisa Ritcey from the BC Bear Aware program has kindly passed along these facts and advice for Lac Le Jeune residents.

Also, here are a couple of resources to highlight:

• A map of latest bear (and other animal) reports 
• Bear Aware on Facebook 

 ====================== 

Black bears destroyed in BC due to conflicts with humans has been on the decrease since the inception of Bear Aware back in 1998. At that time approximately 1,000 bears a year were being destroyed due to conflicts. Presently, about 500 black bears a year are destroyed – which although, still high, is a marked improvement over past years.

The main thing to remember is that the bears are likely to move on if they are not rewarded for their visit. They may come into town out of curiosity or because of the smell of garbage/fruit/compost but if they do not find a meal they are unlikely to return. This is good for the bears and the people.

If bears get into our garbage they can hurt themselves. Our garbage contains broken glass, metal cans, house hold chemicals, and plastic. Leaving our garbage out can also hurt our children. Bears become habituated or food conditioned, and to children may appear as if they are safe to approach. The bears may seem calm enough but they are animals and they will protect food, their young, and their territory if they decide we are threatening any of those.

One attractant that we tend to forget about is bird seed, probably because it has no odour, and we also figure bears can eat seeds in the wild. But 1 kilo of bird seed has about 8,000 calories in it – it would take a bear almost all day to eat that in berries. There is also no such thing as a bear proof bird feeder. Remind residents that birds have plenty of food available in the summer and should only feed birds in the winter after the bears have gone to den.

Thank you again for your efforts to keep residents and the bears safe.

 Stats 

* 1998: 892 complaints, 46 bears destroyed
* 1999: 343 complaints, 11 bears destroyed
* 2000: 248 complaints, 13 bears destroyed
* 2001: 535 complaints, 25 bears destroyed
* 2002: 267 complaints, 10 bears destroyed
* 2003: 1,554 complaints, 35 bears destroyed
* 2004: 434 complaints, 3 bears destroyed
* 2005: 427 complaints, 3 bears destroyed
* 2006: 791 complaints, 4 bears destroyed
* 2007: 423 complaints, 3 bears destroyed
* 2008: 507 complaints, 5 bears destroyed
* 2009: 173 complaints, 4 bears destroyed
* 2010: 310 complaints, 5 bears destroyed

By Lisa Ritchey. Posted with permission.

Overlander Ski Club Registration

Registration is now open for the Overlander Ski Club 2012/2013 Ski Season! 60 kilometres of groomed trails, including night skiing, dog trails, snowshoe trails, terrain park for the kids, hot chocolate in the day lodge.. and the occasional moose spotting. Best deal around!

Reminder About Bear Attractant Management

Photo by Peter Sulzle

We recently had an incident in Lac Le Jeune where a bear, reported to have to been feeding on garbage and dog food left outside, was shot by a local resident.

This is the time of year that we often see bears in our neighbourhoods as they descend from the mountains and begin their final feeding frenzy before winter sets in. It seems like a good time to remind residents that attractant management is the way to prevent conflict.

Obvious good practice includes ensuring garbage is secured inside a building, and feeding birds only when bears are hibernating. But some suggestions are less obvious. Did you know that petroleum products can attract bears? Also, consider that even though a bear might not be able to get into a compost or garbage bin, he was still attracted to the smell in the first place.

Yesterday I emailed Miranda Brooke, the Kamloops Bear Aware  Coordinator, to see if she had any data to share on bear deaths due to poor attractant management. Just by coincidence that information was published in the Kamloops Daily News today: "Bear Aware campaign ramps up after two killed" I wonder if it includes Lac Le Jeune, because it seems in some years we've had more bears killed out here than the totals listed for the area. Also mentioned in that article -- bears need 20,000 calories a day, the equivalent of 40 big macs!

I also asked Miranda for some help in crafting a clear message that would have some impact. I haven't heard back yet, but maybe these wonderful photographs from local photographer, Peter Sulzle, will help! (Thanks, Peter, for permission to share these on our blog.)

For heaps of good information about bears visit the Bear Aware Website. To report a problem, call the Conservation Officer: 1-877-952-7277.

Photo by Peter Sulzle

Photo by Peter Sulzle

Photo by Peter Sulzle

Kamloops Fire Centre Newsletter

The lastest issue of the Kamloops Fire Centre Newsletter is now available online.

As you can see from this map, most of our area has a high or extreme danger rating.

Open publication - Free publishing - More fire

Water Stewardship - Working Group Meeting

Marge Sidney, Water Technician for Ministry of Environment Water Stewardship Division, and Thompson Nicola Regional Director of the BC Lake Stewardship Society visited Lac Le Jeune yesterday evening and met with members of the LLJCA Water Stewardship Working Group.

Topics covered and items for follow-up included:

1. Ways to provide outflow and flushing from the Little Lake (which is one cause of the large fish kill this past spring).
2. Sources of funding for groups such as the Lac Le Jeune Conservation Association for environment enhancement projects.
3. Ministries such as Water Rights, Fisheries, Water Management (MOE), Forestry and Parks that are in a position to make decisions that could impact Lac Le Jeune and contact people in those Ministries.
4. Invasive Species (terrestrial) contacts.
5. Water contact person for Lac Le Jeune at the local MOE.

Remarks for Public Hearing: Howard Mattfeld

Howard Mattfeld prepared these remarks for the Lakeshore Development Public Hearing.

A FLAWED PROCESS

By: Howard Mattfeld - a long-time resident of Lac Le Jeune

Introduction:

To date the process to rezone the subject property has not been conducted in a fair and honest manner by the TNRD.

Arguments:

1. This rezoning process began a considerable time ago. The Developer has kept the people of Lac Le Jeune informed as to the plans which they put forward to regulators, and to some of the changes which they have applied. The TNRD has invited some stakeholders to be a part of the process: Native Bands, The Provincial Water Comptroller. However, the Regional District has never communicated with the people affected by the zoning changes. The residents of Lac Le Jeune have never been asked for their input, their expertise, event their opinion.
2. There have been a number of changes to the property zoning from the start of this process. District Staff have engaged with the developer and appear to have done everything in their power to accommodate the Developer's wishes. Not once in this process have Staff asked for any input from the people living in the area. Not once has Staff contacted the locals regarding verification of information submitted by the Developer. There has been no communication to local residents by anyone at the TNRD during this process.
3. This process of non-communication has proceeded through the 1st Reading. The only stakeholders who were made aware of the 1st Reading were the TNRD and the Developer. It was only by chance that a search of the TNRD website showed a meeting was to be held. Nobody informed the residents of Lac Le Jeune. There was no invitation to the Conservation Association. There was no invitation to the Water Society. And of course, the 1st Reading was a formality. All discussions and fact finding had already been done. There was no verification of the developer's information, no scrutiny of the information submitted. If there had been, then the TNRD staff would have found a great deal of old information, unverified opinions, and incomplete data.
4. There was in interesting side note to the 1st Reading. A convenant which was tied to the subject property was included in the 1st Readings There was no noticed of this, no discussion, just added to the Reading. Do you not think that the residents should have been informed that a property which was not to be developed, by convenant, was about to be changed? Again, no communication by the TNRD to those who would be affected the most.
5. This process has been very enlightening for the Lac Le Jeune residents. There has always been the expectation that the TNRD Staff and the TNRD Representatives worked on behalf of everyone within their respective jurisdictions. This is in fact not the case. The lack of communication by the Area Representatives, and by the Staff shows that only some entities received TNRD support. Despite contact from the Lac Le Jeune Conservation Association and the Ridgemount Estates Water Users' Society asking to be kept informed, to be kept up to date, no communication came from TNRD.
6. This meeting is a good example of TNRD process.
   a) An invitation to attend this meeting was sent out to those who live within 100 metres of the development. What does 100 metres have to do with this? The entire community will be affected to some degree. The Notice of Public Hearing states "that all persons who believe that their interest in property may be affected by the proposed Bylaw shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to be present written submissions at the Public Hearing". And exactly how are these persons to do so when they have not been made aware of the Public Hearing? This is how the TNRD communicates with their electorate.
   
   b) The Notice of Public Hearing discusses the proposed zoning change. There is no mention of the proposal to remove the Convenant on the Subject Property. The Convenant may seem to be a minor part of the Reading, but to the residents at Lac Le Jeune it is a major achievement dating from a pervious property rezoning of the current Ridgemount Subdivision. Again, no communication by Staff or TNRD Representatives to this proposed major shift in property designation.
   
   c) Not only does this 2nd Reading include the Convenant change, it also included a combining of the 2nd and 3rd Readings. The TNRD appears to be intent on having this proposal passed with a minimum of work. This is another example of where the concerns and schedule of the developer have been addressed, but where due diligence has not. The TNRD is being perceived as less than honest in its dealings. The TNRD is operating through a rezoning process by Decree.
7. The Rezoning affects everything which will occur on the Subject Property. Therefore, it is amazing that water and sewer are not considerations for this Reading. The TNRD may not have the final say in the water allocation, however, it is something which must be discussed as to the preferential options and feasibility. Water is an item which may become a solely TNRD responsibility at a future date. The sewer is definitely within the TNRD mandate and is a vital part of any application for rezoning. How do you know that you are able to proceed on the Proposal if there is no facility for sewer, or if the impacts are unknown? Impacts sucha as catchment problems close to the Little Lake have not ever been examined. 

Summary:

1. The majority of the constituents you represent are not very happy with the way in which this rezoning application has been undertaken. This rezoning process has been flawed.
   - No verification of the developer's data
   - no input from other stakeholders
   - a condensed process to accommodate the developer's schedule
   - the TNRD looks as if it is not being honest with the lack of communication and transparency
2. Residents are not against this development. They want a say in the process and to be kept informed as to what occurs. It will affect their properties in many ways.
3. This 2nd Reading should be cancelled.
   - TNRD staff should request input from the other stakeholders so that their concerns can be addressed, and problems with the developer's submission be corrected.
   - TNRD Representatives can then receive an unbiased Board Report upon which to base their vote.

TNRD Approves Lakeshore Development

Today's Kamloops Daily News has a front page article about the Public Hearing: Despite opposition, TNRD approves Lac Le Jeune development. According to this article 25 Lac Le Jeune residents were present at the hearing. "None spoke in favour."

The LLJCA representatives at this hearing made it clear that the association's mandate is to ensure the protection of our lake environment. They presented evidence to support a recommendation to defer Application No. BA 24 until the issues raised in the submissions are resolved.

Ronaye Elliott, our TNRD Area J Representative, followed the presentations with a comment that the developer "has done more than required to communicate with LLJ residents by making presentations at the last three AGMs". Another director criticized the LLJCA for not responding to the development plans sooner. The motion for removal of the convenant passed unanimously, with perhaps a couple of abstentions.

Despite the outcome of the vote by regional district directors, there will continue to be opportunities for LLJCA to offer expertise to the developers, and for ongoing discussions to ensure environmental concerns are addressed.

You can browse blog posts related to the Lakeshore Development by selecting the 'development' label.

photo by Jenny Perry

Remarks for Public Hearing: David Wyse

David Wyse prepared these remarks for the Lakeshore Development Public Hearing.

===========================

Thank you for allowing us to speak to you this afternoon. We appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns to you and hope that you will share our concerns.

My name is David Wyse. I am President of the Lac Le Jeune Conservation Association. Currently, 68 households at Lac Le Jeune are members of this association. Most, if not all of the membership are concerned about the impact on our water supply by further development. Our mandate is stewardship. We are not opposed to development. But we are opposed to development when due diligence in ensuring the sustainability of the area’s water resource has not been carried out. With that, there can be no compromise.

I will speak to you first followed by Howie Mattfeld, a LLJCA executive member, Elna Strand, a member of the LLJCA and finally, Bob Brown, Vice-President of the LLJCA.

We attached six pictures to our September submission to you. Two of them are aerial photographs from Google Earth that show the area much more clearly than the maps provided to you in the Notice of Public Hearing. There is one picture of Big Lac Le Jeune, two pictures of Little Lac Le Jeune (one taken from the east end of the little lake and the other from the west end). The sixth picture documents a few of the many fish who perished in the Little Lake over the winter.

Would you be concerned if you were told that the guidelines for lakeshore development outlined in the 2004 TNRD publication on Lakeshore Development were no longer relevant?

Would you be concerned if, after repeated requests to suggest other guidelines that would be relevant to protect the water resource you are told to limit the speed of boats on the lake?

Would you be concerned if the environmental impact assessment was not done on the lake the development was being proposed to be built on, but rather on an adjacent lake?

Would you be concerned if the data used to support the conclusions reached in the impact assessment were, for the most part, over a third of a century old?

Would you be concerned that a lake, already designated “Critical” by the TNRD, already 100% overdeveloped based on TNRD criteria, already with a notation that there should be no further development has received approval for further development by the Planning Department of the TNRD?

Would you be concerned if no reassurance had been given to you about the sustainability of your water supply knowing that the development being proposed would draw at least 4.5 million gallons of water from the Lac Le Jeune aquifer annually.

Would you be concerned if the water monitoring program carried out by volunteers from the LLJCA and supported by the MOE and BCLSS since ice-off in May this year found alarming levels of increase in both phosphorous and specific conductivity compared to the 35 year old data used by Mr. Holmes from the wrong lake?

Would you be concerned when you discovered that the proposed development had moved another 60 feet closer to the lake in the past few months. It is now 40 meters from high water mark. And Mr. Holmes, when writing the Cariboo District Lakeshore Guidelines stated that planners “should ensure that buffer leave strips of 250 meters are required on all developments adjacent to high sensitivity lakes.”

From Little Lake

From Little Lake

(show picture of dead fish from the kill this spring)

Would you…please…be concerned enough about our area to ensure that safeguards are put in place to protect our and future generations water resource.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.