By now any one who is not totally brain
dead knows that climate change is a reality, how much of that is due
to human activity is open to debate but we most certainly have a
major part in in it. Given the extremes of weather and threats to our
rivers, forests, flora and fauna by both the changing conditions and
the threats from industrial activity one would think that governments
at all levels would all be pulling in the same direction to protect
our environment.
We all know of course that this is not
true, our Federal Government who should be leading the charge is in
fact opening up our natural world to further destruction by reducing
both the regulations and the staff that enforce them as well as our
scientific experts that study what, why and how these things are
happening and what to do about it.
On the other hand the Ontario
Provincial Government seems to be going to the opposite extreme.
Although they have all but suspended environmental assessments for
industrial wind farm installations in their rush to say that they are
supporting 'green' initiatives they are going overboard to protect
'wetlands' and other 'habitat'. It seems that now a farmers field that occasionally
floods and sees a flock of geese drop in for a rest could be
designated a protected wetland.
What follow then are extracts from a
couple of articles describing opposite extremes of government
actions, somewhere between these two their must be a reasonable level
of environmental protection whist still allowing controlled
development where necessary. Its a tough balancing act, I will let
you decide where that balance lays, for there will be no consensus on
this one, nor will we have any meaningful say in trying to find same.
DFO
Program & Staff Cuts.
Today all DFO (Department of Fisheries & Oceans - who are /
were also responsible for fish habitat in rivers & streams)
habitat protection and management staff in Canada are receiving
letters that they are now "red-circled" - i.e. they are
being affected by
Bill
C-38 with it's budget and habitat legislation and
program
cuts (i.e. DFO downsizing) and many will soon not have a job.
Staff were directed to not discuss this with anyone and only DFO
Ottawa was allowed to comment on the issue. 132 habitat staff across
Canada will be fired (laid off) in the next few months in that many
will have to compete for remaining jobs. In the Pacific Region, they
now have 92 staff and that is to be reduced to 60 - an approximate
33% cut in staff. Also, all habitat office locations in Pacific
Region are to be closed down, with the exception of Whitehorse,
Prince Rupert, Kamloops, Vancouver and Nanaimo.
Ottawa has given all DFO habitat staff
directions to remove the "Habitat Management Program" title
from their organization and from their offices, etc. in that they are
now to be called the "Fisheries Protection Program".
All DFO habitat protection offices from Quebec to the BC-Alberta
border, i.e. Central and Arctic Region, will also be drastically cut
and all offices will be shut down except in Ottawa, Burlington,
Winnipeg, Edmonton and Yellowknife. It is indicated that of 63 DFO
offices in Canada with habitat staff (now "fisheries protection"
staff), most will be closed and the number of offices having
habitat-type program staff will be reduced to 14 for a giant
geographic area - i.e. Canada.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources says the changes are
just extra criteria to fill gaps in existing wildlife protection
rules. They would apply to new developments such as subdivisions,
commercial construction or wind turbines, not to smaller projects
such as renovating a house.
The scope is broader than anything Ontario has seen before. The
draft rules would protect butterflies, toads, salamanders, deer, red
spruce, white oak, alvars, sand dunes, bogs, owls, farm fields that
flood in the spring, geese, springs, bears, lichens, gulls, turtles,
sandpipers, mink, wolves, ospreys, and “dancing grounds” of the
sharp-tailed grouse.
These include urban species such as ring-billed gulls (familiar
wherever French fries are sold), merlins (a small hawk common in
Ottawa) and “nuisance” geese.
More specifically, the following would be designated as
Significant Wildlife Habitat:
• Any wetland with 20 or more frogs or tadpoles;
• Large buffer areas around nests of Cooper’s hawks,
ring-billed gulls, Canada geese or most ducks, all of which are found
in urban Ottawa;
• Farm fields that flood in spring if they are stopovers for 100
or more migrating geese or ducks;
• A single snapping turtle nest, or a pond where five painted
turtles spend the winter;
• Any hawk or owl nest in a forest;
• A cliff and the “talus” (fallen rocks) at its base;
• Any stand of trees where 10 per cent or more of the trees are
white oak;
• “Corridors” where toads, deer, or salamanders move from
spot to spot;
• Any spring or “seep” where groundwater comes to the
surface.
In all, the draft outlines habitats of hundreds of types of plants
and animals, ranging from forests to beaches to farms and suburbs.
The draft document on Significant Wildlife Habitat was posted on a
provincial website in the spring, but attracted little notice.
It
is on the Environmental Registry website, reference number 011-5740.
The period for comments is closed.
---------------
And there you have it, the two extremes from two different levels
of government, and both of them IMHO as troubling as the other.