I crunched the numbers and the cities shown above works out to about 755 additional people living in these cities.

The problem I see with this small number is I wonder if it really doesn't mean people are moving here but rather there are enough families having kids and they are staying put in the North rather than running to Vancouver.

The issue might be people in the North finally can't afford to go to the lower mainland anymore due to the high cost of housing so they are managing to stay here.

Overall, it's still positive. I just wonder if it's being a little overkill to say we should be expecting big growth.

An aberration IMO. The facts are PG lost 70% of its population between the working ages of 25-40 (down by 15,000). This was replaced by an increase in the 40+ age groups looking for lower cost retirement than they can get in places like the Lower Mainland and Okanogan. Hardly a stat that is good for a long term growing dynamic economic base. More of a stat that reflects the realities of lost opportunities.

I should say that 70% decline is since 2001.

They were not lost Eagleone. They grew older and increased the size of the next cohort. I believe it is referred to as a demographic shift and is taking place all across Canada and other countries with "maturing" populations. Nothing new in most European countries. It is mitigated somewhat in countries with a significant immigrant population increase.

BTW, generally speaking, more immigrants move to urban areas, which is part of the explanation of the increasing proportion of people in large urban areas.

Also, I looked at all the 2010 figures of communities in BC versus last year, the last census year of 2006, as well as 1996.

The single year relation is, of course, virtually useless. Too many factors which can cause false projections over such a short period, especially with small population bases.

For instance, 2010 to 2009 saw a greater than 8% increase in the population of both Princeton and Wells.

2010 to 2006 is reported to have an increase of 2,678 residents to PG for 3.67%

2010 to 1996 is reported to have 2,671 resident decrease for -3.41%. Thus, according to StatsBC, half of the "lost" population has been made up in the last 4 years.

I'll wait to see the 2011 census information.

However, looking at the figures for all the communities, the loss of population from rural areas seems to be in reversal mode. I think that is the real story.

Of the total of 67 communities which lost population between 2006 and 1996, Prince George was by far the largest community.

The loss between 2010 and 2006 includes only 27 communities and a total population base of just over 100,000 rather than around 400,000.

BTW, we have a population whose "family units" are getting smaller so, unless that is factored in, the number of hydro connections is a poor indicator of population increases. That's why I am waiting for an actual count. The flaws are not quite as glaring.

Stand by epeople a census is on the way and when it is done, if completed like the last time, it will be wrong as well...I don't know who else got threatned with jail for not filling in the census more than once...I was! thus the stats were wrong!

Just looking at that information again.

In case someone wants to know about Mackenzie, since it is not shown in the article.

1996: 6,257
1997: 6,147
1998: 5,953
1999: 5,777
2000: 5,637
2001: 5,401
2002: 5,241
2003: 5,028
2004: 4,936
2005: 4,770
2006: 4,616
2007: 4,534
2008: 4,254
2009: 3,832
2010: 3,706

That is 14 years of continuous year over year decline with 3 of those years being recorded from census counts.

That is a 2,551 person decline for a total of 40.77%

Only Tahsis, Part of the Sechelt Ind Gov District and Stewart were worse than that on a percentage basis.

On a percentage basis, just below 40% were Fort St. James, Port Alice, and Tumbler Ridge.

An afterthought ..... There is no better indicator than that, that Mackenzie is a one industry community. As a service centre, we have to care about such communities, because there fate is very closely linked to our fate.

Sort of like the snowfalls ... if you are not prepared to pick up in a timely fashion after each and every small one, eventually you will be overpowered by the collective hits.

1996 78,239
1997 76,864
1998 74,438
1999 72,237
2000 70,486
2001 67,535
2002 65,535
2003 62,871
2004 61,721
2005 59,645
2006 57,720
2007 56,694
2008 53,193
2009 47,916
2010 46,341

What are those figures?

If the population of PG had declined at the same rate as Mackenzie ...... just in case there are some who cannot relate that kind of decline to a larger community.

Keep up the good work Gus.

BCRacer, the census is the best we have. It is well known that there is an undercount right across the country. On top of that, it is not just this country.

I would think that police states would have more accurate counts, but they would likely not really care if they do or don't.

Here is a bit of a discussion paper on census undercounts in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and USA and how they calculate how much that undercount likely is.
http://144.53.228.30/ausstats/abs@.nsf/papersbyTopic/CF8E4BB16D64275ACA2570620003032D?OpenDocument

Hmmm, i wonder if P.G. will ever become a major city... :/

BC Stats Census Profiles.

Prince George BC

1981 67559
1986 67621
1991 69653
1996 75150
2001 72406
2006 70981
2010 75568 (guesstimet)
We will see what the 2011 census number is. If the number quoted above 75,568 is correct (which I doubt) then we are basically where we were in 1996. If we look for actual growth since 1981 we would see that our population increased by 8009 people. Or an average of 276 people per year over a 29 year period.

This kind of growth is for all intents and purposes insignificant, and could be accounted for in the most part by births, and a few people moving to Pr George from the outlying areas.

However if you go by the Citys sign at the junction of highway 16 and 97 you would see that the population of Prince George is 81000 people. So who do we beleive. The census takers, or the City which seems incapable of telling it the way it is.

I do not think that the City even knows where all the numbers are located - signs, publications, internet, etc.

Then there is the Census Agglomerated area which actually is over 80,000.

Colin's sign at 16 & 97 stills says 81 thousand. I believe that sign is the gospel. Seasonally or should I say economically adjusted?