Euthana­sia would be bet­ter than life in an aquar­ium

The Province - - EDITORIAL -

The Van­cou­ver Aquar­ium should take a les­son from the Wildlife Res­cue As­so­ci­a­tion of B.C., sit­u­ated in Burn­aby.

As the aquar­ium should do with cetaceans, the as­so­ci­a­tion’s man­date is the re­cov­ery, re­ha­bil­i­ta­tion and re­lease of or­phaned or in­jured wildlife. Crea­tures that are un­treat­able or un­re­leasable are hu­manely eu­th­a­nized be­cause hu­mans do not have the abil­ity to pro­vide a proper long-term home.

If I were a stranded or wounded marine mam­mal, I’d rather be eu­th­a­nized or left to die a nat­u­ral death than live the rest of my days in a thim­ble-sized pool for the money-mak­ing amuse­ment of gawk­ing hu­mans.

Liz Stonard, Port Al­berni

More reser­voirs needed

We live in a rain­for­est, but we’re go­ing to have wa­ter re­stric­tions for five months? The rest of the world must be laugh­ing at us.

Why not look to the fu­ture with global warm­ing and thou­sands more peo­ple mov­ing into the re­gion and do some­thing now. Ex­pand or build new reser­voirs, build a de­sali­na­tion plant, or at least get a con­ver­sa­tion go­ing on sav­ing all the wa­ter that is pour­ing into the oceans and rivers right now.

Carol Beatch, Burn­aby

Didn’t check drugs?

So, dur­ing the study of drugs con­tain­ing fen­tanyl at Van­cou­ver’s In­site safe-in­jec­tion site, only five of the 600 daily vis­i­tors ac­cepted the of­fer of get­ting their drugs checked for this deadly sub­stance? I think that says more than the re­sults.

Lance Frohlick, Rich­mond

Enough Canucks, al­ready

If I wanted to read, “All Canucks, all the time,” I would go to the Canucks’ web­site. Is sports writer Ja­son Botchford not ca­pa­ble of writ­ing about any­thing else — an­other sport, maybe?

I find it dif­fi­cult to be­lieve that read­ers wel­come the mind-numb­ing, daily bar­rage of in­for­ma­tion about a team whose sea­son ended on April 9.

Andy Gilbert, Ver­non

Trudeau risk­ing ma­jor­ity

On May 12, Prime Min­is­ter Justin Trudeau in­tro­duced Bill C-78 to ban oil tankers off B.C.’s north coast. Nat­u­rally, there is to be no East Coast ban. The bill would elim­i­nate the Prince Ru­pert area — by far the safest lo­ca­tion for a tanker port on the West Coast — as the ter­mi­nus for a highly ef­fi­cient, en­vi­ron­men­tally re­spon­si­ble en­ergy cor­ri­dor, which has lo­cal and First Na­tions sup­port, to trans­port oil, nat­u­ral gas and elec­tric­ity through north­ern Al­berta and B.C.

Yet Trudeau ap­proved the widely op­posed Trans Moun­tain Pipe­line ex­pan­sion that will in­crease oil tanker num­bers in Bur­rard In­let and along the south coast, which a B.C. NDP-Green coali­tion and Van­cou­ver and Burn­aby will work to de­lay or kill. The En­ergy East pipe­line to the East Coast will never get ap­proved be­cause Trudeau knows op­po­si­tion in Que­bec would cost him his slim, five-seat ma­jor­ity.

That leaves Al­berta with no new mar­kets and just one mar­ket for oil, the U.S., which is striv­ing, suc­cess­fully, to be­come self-suf­fi­cient in oil, and leaves East­ern Canada to im­port pre­mium-priced crude. With Bill C-78, the prime min­is­ter can kiss good­bye four Lib­eral seats in Al­berta and at least one in B.C., as well as sev­eral in the At­lantic prov­inces. The Lib­er­als will lose their fiveseat par­lia­men­tary ma­jor­ity. Good rid­dance!

Mike Pri­aro, Cal­gary

JA­SON PAYNE/ PNG

The de­bate over marine mam­mals in aquar­i­ums rages on.

Comments

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.