We tag the title 'Conservation Authority' as a misnomer predicated on the fact that they have overstepped their mandate, Abused innocent Citizens, work against the well-being of society and above all, fail in the husbanding of our precious natural resources. These so-called conservation authorities run roughshod over the farms that produce our food supply but when we need protection for our resources they fail miserably!.
Their general forte` is supporting development whenever and wherever there is money involved. It's easy to to understand the trajectory of the conservation authorities and their political masters by simply following the money!
.
Most ludicrous of all is to have cavalier miscreants espousing Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a form of protections from government tyranny such as the very expensive tyranny inherit with conservation authorities..
Even more ludicrous is the necessity to remind our feckless government that there are no rights and freedoms in our supposed 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' as long as the Citizen must personally sue in the governments court to avail these protections.
.
Our government agencies even use the so-called justice circus to override legal contracts such as Crown Patents and municipal legal documents.
News Alert Niagara is working diligently to inform the electorate that the conduct of conservation authorities have been running amuck under the eye and approval of our elected government and assisted by the government court system.
.
.
NOTE:
We have removed the identity from the submitted stories below sent to us from Ontario farm families for their protection. It is enough that the stories are disseminated. The dissemination of the story is what is important.
Dear Editor News Alert Niagara
The Following is our story:
We ran into the Conservation regulations
when north Grey imposed EP on our farm in their zoning regulations at the
behest of Conservation. Their map shows our 98.5 acre farm as a postage
sized blip with zoning running in fat lines over this space, going over top of
our driveway in 2 places, running through the south field where we have a small
orchard, covering parts of our yard and over buildings, the back of the Quonset
hut and across hay fields and bush. And then there are the setbacks.
I asked Conservation to clarify what areas were involved because trying
to superimpose a tiny scrap of paper on the amount of acreage was not telling
me much. In their written response they told me when they would come out
to investigate, they would probably find that there was more EP they could designate.
Needless to say, we did not roll out the welcome mat. The regulations for
wetland zoning prohibit you from cutting grass, trees, walking on it etc.
I appealed with the planner and was told I would have to pay for hydrological studies,
pay fees for a tribunal appeal etc. I was told I could drive on the driveway
but could not walk out the back door of the Quonset!!! So now we are to stop
cutting grass, removing dead trees. This is creating a major fire
hazard. My father had recently lost the family cottage, boathouse, boat
and tractor but the fire had not spread to the neighbours cottages or the
forest because I insisted on keeping the grass clipped and all dead trees and
branches were removed annually.
Fruit trees are hardwood. They
do NOT grow in wetlands and ours are thriving. A wetland has to meet certain
criteria. Our farmland does not meet those criteria. I am a senior
with medical issues which are affecting my mobility. I cannot fight
through 3-foot-high grass and weeds, climb over fallen branches in my front
yard. I do not feel I should have to pay for a permit to Conservation to
see if they will give me permission to change the stairs to the house to a
ramp.
A conservation regulation is
not a law. The province can’t enforce it so they passed it on to local
municipalities to be included in their zoning bylaws. Our farm is
privately owned land. We hold the Patent which was a legally binding
contract between the Monarch who issued it and the grantee, his heirs and
successors, forever. Once this contract came into effect, even the
Monarch could not repeal it. The MNR still issues patents today. CN
trains run on land patented to them. Conservation Authorities should only
have any say over Crown land.
More to come...
No Silent politician is worth your vote!
>> Madam and Sir:
>>
>>
>> This CTV report says that the Ontario government
seeks comment about exempting forests from the Endangered Species Act; I hope
that my observations and suggestion - revoke the ESA - will be accepted.
>>
>> Caribou have great difficulty living and moving
through dense forest because they eat lichen that does not grow in shade and
because their antlers dislike tree branches.
Caribou live well in the High Arctic in summer because there is open
space and lots of lichen; they don't need forests. The headline photo of happily grazing caribou
did not include trees. So the bias in
using that photo is apparent.
>>
>> The Endangered Species Act was passed by Premier
McGuinty in 2007 and took effect in June 2008.
I had planted 600 Butternut seedlings on my managed forest farm. Because I did not want to go to jail for 600
years and pay several hundred million dollars in fines for
"possessing" an endangered species, I cut them down in the Spring of
2008. I did so surreptitiously because
the county tree-cutting bylaw (approved by Premier McGuinty's Municipal Act)
forbade me to harvest my trees without permission and the county authority
refused to grant permission. I had to
decide which law to violate, and chose the lower-tier regulation.
>>
>> Two years later, the McGuinty government quietly
passed an ESA regulation that allowed those who planted a Butternut tree to use
it as they saw fit. I had destroyed 600
ten-foot "endangered" trees because of the Endangered Species
Act. I suspect that many other
endangered species were destroyed or chased away to protect property owners
>>
>> The Endangered Species Act endangers the species
it wishes to protect.
>>
>> The Bobolink is "protected" by an ESA
regulation that forbids any hay cutting until mid July. Delaying hay harvest by a month means the hay
loses most of its nutrient value, which leads to more hay cutting to feed
livestock. But Bobolinks did not nest in
Ontario hay fields at all until forests were cut down to create hay fields;
they were very rare in Ontario. If the
ESA is enforced, they will again become very rare.
>>
>> The Badger is "endangered," and in
consequence farmland for a diameter of one mile around a groundhog hole
possibly occupied by a Badger is denied any use. Determinations are made by an ESA
"agent," appointed by Queen's Park, who may not be able to
distinguish between a badger and a groundhog.
>>
>> The Barn swallow, very very rare in Ontario
until wooden barns were built because its thin feathers cannot withstand
Ontario cold, is endangered, and therefore "protects" decrepit wooden
barns from being replaced by modern barns kinder to livestock.
>>
>> Black bears, Cougars, Wolverines and Grey foxes
are "endangered" in Ontario.
They are endangered because they can kill livestock and small children,
and are therefore often killed or chased away.
They should not be listed as "endangered" in southern
Ontario. A fox often visits my farm, but
I can't chase it away, and I won't kill it because it eats mice and voles.
>>
>> The ESA lists over 200 species - mosses (Spoon-leaved
Moss); vascular plants (Blunt-nosed Woodsia); insects (Frosted Elfin);
amphibians (Northern Dusky Salamander); reptiles (Blue Racer); birds
(Loggerhead shrike); mammals (Beluga); fishes (Paddlefish); lichens (Flooded
jellyskin); molluscs (Rainbow mussel); etc.
Most farmers and city folk would be hard pressed to identify most of the
listed species. The Beluga (whale) is
never found n Ontario, only in Hudson's Bay.
The Loggerhead shrike grabs other birds in flight and impales them on
thorn bushes until it grows hungry - not a vary attractive Ontarian.
>>
>> Very few listed species dwell in towns and
cities; so the ESA threatens only farmers who are unable to cope with
"possessed" wildlife that may traverse rural areas or bide
there. Therefore, when listed species
are found, they are endangered by the landowner. A man in Erin was charged by the town for
harbouring ("possessing") a wild swan that visited his back yard
pond.
>>
>> Forests and woodlots in southern Ontario are 87%
privately owned. North of the French
River they are 95% Crown owned. Private
landowners protect their trees sustainably because they provide clean air,
retain soil moisture, reduce snow drifts and wind damage to topsoil, offer
material for fences and other structures, and are a source of dead branches for
firewood. No farmer endangers his
woodlot. Forests are sustained by
farmers and (in the north) by the Ontario government; they are not, contrary to
the environmental groups seeking donations and government handouts, threatened
by the owners. They are instead
constantly improved.
>>
>> Contrary to Greenpeace Canada, protecting
landowners from the ESA has nothing to do with COVID-19 or rebuilding the
economy. Objection to the ESA has been
raised since it was passed in 2007.
>>
>> Ecojustice is much confused about caribou
habitat. Caribou summer quite happily on
the Arctic islands where mature trees are three inches long and lie flat on the
ground. Many thousands of caribou were
drowned in a Quebec river during their trek north when a Hydroelectric project
released raging water, but I heard no complaints from environmentalists.
>>
>> The Green Party is also confused. Farmers and foresters do not destroy trees;
developers destroy trees. A swath of
perhaps a thousand acres was swept clear of trees just south of the Credit
Valley Conservation Authority Headquarters building to construct residential
homes. A clutch of genuinely endangered
American chestnut seedlings was destroyed in Grand Valley in order to erect a temporary
real estate sign. Several American
chestnut trees were cut down along the Lake Ontario shore east of Toronto in
2007 by a home builder, to evade the ESA.
Several thousand Dufferin County acres were bought to "grow
potatoes;" then the owner applied for a gravel pit. The exemptions to Ontario tree-cutting bylaws
include Hydro lines, municipal works, road maintenance, city dwellers and home
developments - but not farmers.
>>
>> City-bred bureaucrats may be misleading elected
officials; "green" lobbyists certainly are. My hope is that our responsible politicians
will listen instead to rural landowners and apply common sense to legislation
passed by the previous government. I
recommend revocation of the ESA
No comments:
Post a Comment