Sturgis North? Just what are the criteria for allowing – or not allowing-such an activity in the Shuswap, anyway?
Among the ‘not-allowable’ criteria that could easily have been applied: noise and pollution (lamentable, in this, the ‘green-conscious’ 21st century); the cultural black eye of an in-our-face celebration of machine dominance in a community noted for its relaxed, artistic, family welcoming environment); and even the inconvenient closure of normal downtown activities.
The allowable criteria really include just one: a money- grab – pure and simple – and, as songstress Peggy Lee would have wistfully wondered: Is That (this) all There Is?
But, ultimately, these are secondary considerations. In the real, ecology-powered world (there is no other), the first and foremost guideline for human activity is straightforward, and though woefully practised, it has always been straightforward: the extent of a negative environmental impact/foot-print that a given activity has on the land/soil ecosystems themselves.
In a previous Observer news article, respected, longtime farmer John McLeod clearly identified the negative soil impacts of a Sturgis North on ALR farmland of the proposed Moore site.
And, in case it needs repeating, arable B.C. land (capable of agriculture) is less than four per cent of the province’s total land base. Further, as we are painfully aware, food-prices are hardly expected to decline. On the contrary, all indicators point to dramatic increases in most, if not all, food prices.
Hellooooo?… the availability, protection and sustainability of arable (crop-growing) land is surely obvious.
Alas, with the notable exception of Ken Jamieson, Salmon Arm council utterly failed to connect these dots on Sturgis North – and that lack of foresight should be remembered this July and beyond – when our senses, and the very Earth itself are scheduled for negative impact by this ill-advised extravaganza.
Tom Crowley
