• We apologize for the somewhat convoluted sign-up process. Due to ever-more sophisticated attacks by chatbots, we had to increase our filtering in order to weed out AI while letting humans through. It's a nuisance, but a necessary one in order to keep the level of discourse on the forums authentic and useful. From the actual humans using WCP, thanks for your understanding!

WE'VE REALLY WON! - Texada kayaking needs your support

I guess it's now time to point out that we've won a battle but not the campaign. If you note in the letter from gov't, the application was withdrawn and not denied. None of us knows why it was withdrawn - and it could be for many reasons totally unrelated to all our work. And at this point, who's to say some much more sophisticated and resourced applicant couldn't just jump right in and continue the process all over again.
- we need to know more: was the gov't going to deny the application and therefore the less controversial way out taken?
- the procedure for getting higher status for Northeast Bay and it's upland need to proceed.
- and vigilance is required so that we could if necessary ramp up all over again.
- I also think some of us [the Texada island resident association and some others of us] need to have a debriefing session.

anyway, some sober 2nd thoughts.

[And just a separate addition that maybe needs to be stated: we [most involved that I have noticed statements from] are NOT against aquaculture. Indeed, I personally think that Submersible Longline Aquaculture might just be a great way to produce shellfish because of the seductive advantages that it could provide if done properly . The whole issue here is that one proponent for his own commercial gain was to adversely affect the use of many varied users on the public land, shores, and oceanscape of a designated parklike property that has been used by many [and almost incidentally by kayakers and canoeists as well.]
I just received this 2nd hand information. [cut from a longer email]:
[cut] . . . As it relates to the the reason for the application being with drawn, the message from DFO to the . . . office, the statement made by The Aquaculture office was that this is not an appropriate location for a shellfish farm, due to conflict with recreational uses in the Bay.
They gave him 2 options, one, withdraw your application or 2 move to another location.
[they] decided to Withdraw. If [they] didn't the Province (Forestry) would have not approved it and Cancelled the application outright.
This is normal procedure as the ministries don't want to look, anti Business.
It's over and no other applicant will chose this site, as they will hear early on that this is not an appropriate location. . . . [cut]

So it really is over. Amazing. Whew. Unbelievable. The arguments were heard, understood, and convincing.
Wow! What a great story. Here's one that had a different ending ... Once upon a time, some outfit was going to spray pesticides in an area around Depoe Bay (Oregon). The locals had meetings and objected, pointing out statistics of increased medical problems occurring after the previous spraying. The "government" could find no reason not to spray and scheduled it anyway. I think locals were advised to stay indoors that day - you know, because of the safe spraying. Somehow, the day before spraying was scheduled, the helicopter ... hum ... well, it blew up. No one in town knew anything about it. "Helicopter? What helicopter?" There was a pause in the process and the government did another study. They found an increase in medical problems and canceled the remaining spraying.

This was decades ago. When I've visited the coast, I'd ask my mother, "What happened to that helicopter." She'd look away and said, "Helicopter? What helicopter?"

I tried to google it but you'd have to go back 40 years or more. From the search hits, it looks like the Spray/No Spray fight continues.
Last edited:
Looking back on this topic, I realize that over half of the posters that were distributed at the time were not shown in this thread.
They were a campaign to outline the controversy from a completely different aspect: a visual and emotional point of view . The idea was to have a simple and direct graphical message from the most basic representative view of us all: a mother and child reacting to a lost cause. As the fight continued and backroom deviations from the original application were discerned, the cartoons were a quick and direct method to demonstrate and uplift spirits that the original concerns were constant no matter what deviations were in play.

Here they are in order with a slight comment on what issue was emerging at the time. To me, they really tell the story from a different dimension.

This 1st one shows the issue of the whole public beach, foreshore, and ocean-scape being completely taken over by this commercial enterprise:


This next one was to add more publicity to the ‘UREP’ word and what it really meant: it’s for the public. Still using the original graphic – trying to pull those heartstrings.


This next one was continuing on the same line to emphasize the main word and ideas of the UREP designation being totally contravened by the proposal. Still using the original emotional graphic but from a slightly expanded point of view.


And then we found out that all kinds of other modifications were being proposed such that the specific concerns of anything that we previously raised just might be considered as not applying any more. A quick questioning of the ‘grapevine’ and then our fairly decent newly acquired knowledge of the subject allowed a quick response, but more importantly, a much more certain resolve that this was not being fairly presented and we need to buckle down and really be more forceful about our concerns.


All the unpublicized alternatives [that we had previously found out about], culminated at the public presentation with a whole new presentation [of course not the original application – and of course all of us blindsided ]- the use of ‘Submersible Longlines’: a fantastic new [no regulations too!!] concept where everything is below the surface and can’t be seen and you can paddle over, we’ll even put a kayak rental over the top of it, and there is no obstruction anywhere. Hearts, and flowers, and puppy dogs, and birds singing, and who could object???
And of course, although an interesting concept and possibly a best approach in other locations, in this one there were many many drawbacks in this specific location. I won’t go through the myriad of problems that the proposal would present but the first image that came to my mind was something like the next cartoon. I just love G Wright's rendering of the entangled skeletized swimmer caught below the surface:


And finally the main logical arguments of a right proposal in a wrong location and one user destroying the use of many in a public park won the day – and so the finale with the same mother and daughter - representing us all – finally breathing free: