Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: chris gadsden on February 02, 2011, 01:54:50 PM
-
Chilliwack Times
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/Wake+call+property+owners/4202645/story.html
-
I am very interested to see hopw this will all play out!
Personally I think it's good to have set backs, but then I am not a farmer.
Having these setbacks will not only help the sucker but other fish, amphibians, etc etc
But in the end it always comes back to $$
-
The biggest setback is John (sucker vote me in) Les.
-
I am very interested to see hopw this will all play out!
Personally I think it's good to have set backs, but then I am not a farmer.
Having these setbacks will not only help the sucker but other fish, amphibians, etc etc
But in the end it always comes back to $$
You probably wouldn't mind if the govt. confiscated half your property either would you ? Or is it just alright to do it to someone else ?
-
Id hate to be a farmer, seeing what Ive worked hard all my life over go to not because the world needs another sucker.
-
--So move Vancouver off the Delta
--Government (not the workers) is lazy... no matter what they say about a plan... they will just make a rule, then send out some poor rule enforcer to tell those who are affected...
--Haven't seen this plan but have seen many others. The failure I see to good planning is the malicious intent of some groups to profit from or use the plan as a publicity stunt for their own causes.
--It is often difficult to get good information on the real issue and sort that out from those just beating their own drum.
--What I would like to know.. bottom line... basic questions answered... to sustain a viable population how many suckers do we need...how much physical space needs to be regulated and how are we going to measure the results.
--Included in how many do we need.. is this the centre of the population or is this the fringe of the population
--Finally.. some species have over time disappeared.. long before people were around... we cannot run everything like a Zoo..where we have a set number of species and composition in an artificial habitat.
--This does not mean I am against the study nor the proposal for protection, but I want to see some real science and answers to some basic questions in the report and recommendations.
-
Saving the Salish sucker has benefits for salmon as well. Most of these ditches where the suckers are found are feeder creeks for major salmon bearing streams.
While I appreciate that the "landholder" may be disadvantaged, they don't legally "own" their land. The government can and will do whatever they believe is in the best interests of everyone. In Canada the Queen actually owns all the land. The government is responsible for managing the country on behalf of the Queen.....
http://www.whoownstheworld.com/canada/ (http://www.whoownstheworld.com/canada/)
"All physical land in Canada is the property of the Crown, Queen Elisabeth 11. There is no provision in the Canada Act, or in the Constitution Act 1982 which amends it, for any Canadian to own any physical land in Canada. All that Canadians may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. Land defined as ‘Crown land’ in Canada, and administered by the Federal Government and the Provinces, is merely land not ‘dedicated’ or assigned in freehold tenure. Freehold is tenure, not ownership. Freehold land is ‘held’ not ‘owned’."
-
So what your saying is starve the people but save the sucker? I fail to see the logic in that, so lets keep grabbing farmland and save the fishy but let the general populace starve. ???
-
How does keeping riparian areas equal starving people ??? at least with keeping the riparian area it benefits the environment, unlike releasing farmland from the ALR, which only benefits the rich developers.For far too long farmers have been allowed to pollute our waters and yes these creeks are "our" waters. Problem is farmers have a tendency to think of what benefits themselves rather than what benefits the greater good.
-
Just remember that when your at the cash register payin $10 for a loaf of bread, I agree the enviroment is important, but I tend to put people first where its obvious, like farms, not some dinky Salish Sucker. Where will it end?
-
Dinky salish sucker... Nice... They just happened to be found in a few headwaters on the planet, are genetically distinct to other minnow species due to being isolated since the Pleistocene glaciation.
Sure, lets rid them. They serve no commercial, recreational, social importance to us anyway. :)
Another species to add to the list of evil species for culling, as they interfere with human interest.
-
protecting the few riparian areas that are left will not add a significant amount to the price at the store and their is a benefit to farmers, lowered land value means paying less on property taxes ;). will farmers pass on the added savings.. I doubt it ;D
-
They serve no commercial, recreational, social importance to us anyway.
My point exactly.
As for farmers passing on the savings, take a look what farmers are paid for their harvest, then tell me if they should pass on the savings.
We dont need farms anyway. Lets just import it all from the south and the far east.
-
They serve no commercial, recreational, social importance to us anyway.
My point exactly.
After running this forum for almost ten years, I'm still surprised by what I find from time to time.
-
So what your saying is we aren't entitled to our own opinions, sorry I dont see somethings through your eyes Rod.
-
They serve no commercial, recreational, social importance to us anyway.
And what commercial, recreational, social importance do you serve?
To me the sucker is just an animal that has no direct importance to me or my way of life.
However, like frogs, are an important part of the ecosystem (an ecosystem that we all inhabit).
I hate mosquitoes but understand that they are an important food source for those further up the chain which benefits those even further up.
Just because you have aposable thumbs and have the ability to affect your surroundings by your actions doesn't mean you should leave a swathe of detrimental decisions in your wake.
A lot of decisions have been made without looking at the future consequences and unfortunately for some those desicions can come back to haunt.
A lot of past decisions have had an effect on the areas a lot of us presently fish or would love to fish in the future.
Some reparations SUCK, but......
Would I be happy if the Govt. came by and appropriated property?
HELL NO! It happened to my uncle (not an environmental issue) and I know the headaches and BS it entails.
-
So what your saying is we aren't entitled to our own opinions, sorry I dont see somethings through your eyes Rod.
No, you're entitled to your opinions, otherwise I'd be deleting a lot of posts everyday. ;D
I'm just also expressing my opinions.
-
His name is BASSonater.... says it all right there... ;D
Dinky salish sucker... Nice... They just happened to be found in a few headwaters on the planet, are genetically distinct to other minnow species due to being isolated since the Pleistocene glaciation.
Sure, lets rid them. They serve no commercial, recreational, social importance to us anyway. :)
Another species to add to the list of evil species for culling, as they interfere with human interest.
And I was going to reply...untill i read this. Nailed it.
-
Perhaps some of you should attend a meeting of this issue with all the farmers present and say this stuff to their faces . As usual lots of opinions based on no facts .
A lot of the habitat of these fish is actually drainage ditches dug by these farmers . And there would be no habitat there if it was not for the fact these farmers maintain these drainage ditches . They maintain these ditches and have to fight FOC to do that. They do require regular dredging or they will completely clog up with grass , and they get harassed while doing it.
I used to live on a small acreage with a small creek going through it. That creek always grew over with high swamp grass to the point of being completely clogged. I raked out a small channel by hand and that is exactly where small fish would move in. If I didn't do it , it was good-bye habitat for them . This is the same thing as what farmers are doing on a larger scale .
-
I see the same from you penn
As usual lots of opinions based on no facts .
I see no facts :o ;D
I have worked with the person that was in charge of studying the Salish Sucker and I would trust his opinion and facts on his background alone since he specializes in these small fish ( nooksack dace, Salish sucker etc). The areas in question in regards to the Salish sucker are in fact creeks. If these drainage ditches you speak of drain into the creek then it is part of the ecosystem, and chances are they weren't dug legally to begin with. How many more creeks , feeder streams were destroyed by farmers?They do not have to fight foc to maintain them, farmers just don't like the fact they only have a certain time frame to apply and get the job done. One cant go dig out a ditch whenever they want and it needs to be performed in a matter that is safe for the workers and the environment ::). This is just a part of farmers doing business, if they don't like it, sell the land, id be happy to have a creek in my property and grow some veggies or steak :).
As for farmers passing on the savings, take a look what farmers are paid for their harvest, then tell me if they should pass on the savings.
I know a lot of farmers, my uncle is one, and he makes and saves plenty being a farmer, so I am telling you they should pass on the savings. It all depends on the area and what you are raising or growing. It's a business , they succeed and fail just like the rest of the businesses out there.
-
Some reading for those interested:
The Biology and Management of the Salish Sucker and Nooksack Dace http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/fr09pearson.pdf
-
This is a complicated tissue that cannot be overly simplified.
Do we need riparian zones along our streams and "ditches"? Absolutely. These zones protect the streams from many adverse effects of human development, and no where is this more important than near farms. Contamination by pesticides and fertilizers are among the most common pollutants in our freshwater systems (oil, sewage and detergent being the other 3 of the top 5 pollutants). Riparian zones set up a buffer that can naturally filter many of these pollutants out of the surface runoff before they reach the streams. These benefit more than just the sucker. It benefits every organism in the freshwater ecosystem, including our precious salmonids.
"Why does a farmer care about the value that developers put on his "farming" land? If he's only interested in farming a lower assessed value is actually a benefit since he pays less property tax."
Well, I can see a couple of reasons why farmers may be worried about the fact that the property they purchased 10 years ago for $1.4 million is now worth only $350 000 because two creeks on the property are now going to have 30 m on either side set back. Firstly, the obvious one is they just lost all their investment in the property (investment that they may have been counting on as their retirement fund). Secondly, farmers often rely on the value of the land to borrow money, just as you do with your house, this will seriously affect their ability to borrow against the value of their property since it is no longer worth as much. Finally, there is the land use itself. Since farmers are no longer able to cultivate right up to the creek, they lose huge amounts of cultivatable land, thereby reducing the crop yield and therefore their income generating potential. This is the same as the government imposing a massive tax income tax hike or demanding that you take a massive pay cut. It is going to affect their take home income. We will, therefore, undoubtedly see an equally startling increase in local food prices as they raise prices to compensate for the reduction in crop yield.
While we need to protect our environment, should we expect a few landowners (farmers) to shoulder the cost of protecting our environment?
The issue is not:
Should we protect the sucker (and the streams that house them, and thousands of other species)?
but:
Should we expropriate the land without compensating the landowner?
I am suggesting we need the latter. Whether you feel the sucker is worth it or not, the riparian zones ARE worth it and so we need to spread the cost of protecting the environment among all of us who are going to benefit from a world that doesn't sacrifice biodiversity and long term sustainability for short term economic prosperity.
-
Thank you Sandman, that I could live with, as long as the farmer is truly compensated. I guess the point I was really trying to make is where do we as a human race draw the line regarding the enviroment, dont get me wrong, I belong to sacredsalmon, and a few others, but not now but maybe years down the road there will be tough decisions to be made.
-
I do agree with most of what you said Sandman, however; I do not agree with spreading out the cost. Like investing and business, some succeed , some fail. If a store goes up beside my house, devaluing the property, should everyone pay for my loss? if I buy land to develop and it has creeks, devaluing the land, should everyone have to pay for my loss? This thought process makes no sense to me as it could set a statement to other similar situations. If someone buys mutual funds and looses money, should everyone pay, after all, it is everyone's benefit if after retirement everyone has a steady income putting money into the country (the more that comes in, the more comes back to us in services, rebates etc). Not to sound callous but I see it as a part of doing business and investing, sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, but you can't expect everyone to pay for your gambles and loses, especially if everyone doesn't share in their winnings (profits) ;)
-
Thank you Sandman, that I could live with, as long as the farmer is truly compensated.
It's ridiculous to ask that my tax dollars be used to compensate anybody for being a good steward of the environment. I think it's a lot of talk with little substance. Even if there was a set back of 30 meters (that's apparently not fact) the farmer wouldn't be prevented from using this area to grow hay. What it would prevent a farmer from doing is working the land to the edge of the ditch or building at the edge of a ditch. As such the impact on the farms value would likely be minimal.
As far as the article quoting John Les.... isn't he the guy that bought some farmland from an old couple for peanuts(because they tried and weren't able to remove it from the ALR) and then through his connections in local and provincial government was able to magically have it removed from the ALR? As I understand he has been cleared of all conflict of interest allegations. ::) Maybe the new rules may endanger another one of his real estate projects. ???
-
Bassonator,
you said it yourself in a previous post... "where does it end".
IF you have policies in place that ignore the most important of environmental issues (ie, extinction of a species) where do you think it will end? The decision to adjust riparian ownership is one that reflects the most basic of environmental considerations.
-
It's ridiculous to ask that my tax dollars be used to compensate anybody for being a good steward of the environment. I think it's a lot of talk with little substance. Even if there was a set back of 30 meters (that's apparently not fact) the farmer wouldn't be prevented from using this area to grow hay. What it would prevent a farmer from doing is working the land to the edge of the ditch or building at the edge of a ditch. As such the impact on the farms value would likely be minimal.
As far as the article quoting John Les.... isn't he the guy that bought some farmland from an old couple for peanuts(because they tried and weren't able to remove it from the ALR) and then through his connections in local and provincial government was able to magically have it removed from the ALR? As I understand he has been cleared of all conflict of interest allegations. ::) Maybe the new rules may endanger another one of his real estate projects. ???
Yep, he once said he would be prepared go to jail if people continued to be impacted by unreasonable set backs on water courses.
-
if I buy land to develop and it has creeks, devaluing the land, should everyone have to pay for my loss? This thought process makes no sense to me as it could set a statement to other similar situations. If someone buys mutual funds and looses money, should everyone pay, after all, it is everyone's benefit if after retirement everyone has a steady income putting money into the country (the more that comes in, the more comes back to us in services, rebates etc). Not to sound callous but I see it as a part of doing business and investing, sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, but you can't expect everyone to pay for your gambles and loses, especially if everyone doesn't share in their winnings (profits) ;)
You are presenting a "slippery slope fallacy". Just because we compensate a landowner for the land being expropriated, does not mean we need to compensate anyone who loses money on an investment. However, if the loss of value of your mutual funds was due to the government passing a law that directly devalued them, then I would say yes you have a case for compensation. When you say "if I buy land and it has creeks, devaluing the land..." you need to recognize that the land had creeks when you bought it, but when you bought it you were allowed by law to use that land. Then the government changed the rules and now you are told you cannot use that land, and THAT was what devalued the land. If the government is going to change the rules then it needs to be prepared to compensate those affected (perhaps with tax breaks for being such good "stewards").
Even if there was a set back of 30 meters (that's apparently not fact) the farmer wouldn't be prevented from using this area to grow hay. What it would prevent a farmer from doing is working the land to the edge of the ditch or building at the edge of a ditch. As such the impact on the farms value would likely be minimal.
I am sorry, I had thought that the 30m set back WOULD prevent the farmer from working that land up to 30 m from the creek. A small farm of say 500m by 500m that is divided by a creek would have 30000 m² (60m x 500m or more) of the 250000 m² removed from production (a cut of about 8%). This is not insignificant. Consider taking an 8% pay cut, or having a sudden increase of 8% in your income tax without a subsequent raise in pay. Do we need to remove this land from production? Absolutely. But if the farmer bought the land with the understanding that he was purchasing (according to the law) 60 acres of workable land, but then was told by the government after the sale that he is now only allowed to use 55 acres. Is the farmer not entitled to compensation of some kind (again, this could be in the form of a tax rebate) since the sole cause of this loss of value is the change in the rules made by the government?
-
Please be careful when it comes to passing around my tax dollars. Contrary to popular belief there is not an unlimited supply....... ???
-
It's ridiculous to ask that my tax dollars be used to compensate anybody for being a good steward of the environment.
Please be careful when it comes to passing around my tax dollars. Contrary to popular belief there is not an unlimited supply....... ???
Isn't interesting that you insist that the landowner pay to be a "good steward" but you yourself are not willing to pay for it. While I am as disgusted as the next guy at the waste of my tax dollars, I would have no problem with being the highest taxed individual on the planet, if I knew that I lived in a society that believed in the value of public education, universal health care, AND the environment (yes, I often wonder IF I do). I also suggest that the compensation be a tax "rebate" (if the set back affects 8% of the property, then the taxes are reduced by 8%; if it affects 2%, then the reduction is 2%), therefore, they would not be your tax dollars, they would be the farmers. This is probably much less than the farmer would want, but may soften the blow at having to make the change to a stewardship role.
-
" If a store goes up beside my house, devaluing the property, should everyone pay for my loss?" Yes: but with conditions.
--If when you bought the property it was not zoned commercial and if the long term plan for the area was residential only. If you bought the property (full disclosure from realtor) knowing that zoning may change or that there was not a plan in place indicating no commercial use then you took the risk and we shouldn't have to pay for the risk.
--Compensation: may not be in money... I assume the 30 m buffer is required with specific vegetation and machine operation restrictions as a default position thus any deviation from this requires a specific approved plan.
--Compensation could be in the form of technical assistance.. developing a machine that could operate on the area or a crop that could be grown with less buffer required, higher valued crop for the area or alternative economic use for the area.
--
-
Good points sandman . The issue is when you change the rules AFTER someone has bought in . If they bought in and then found rules like the 30 meter setback , then yes it's their own fault . But changing the rules later does come with accountability from the government . Don't want your tax dollars bailing some one out like that ? Then don't screw them over in the first place . Confiscating land is what dictatorships do . To anyone with morals , it is something commonly known as STEALING.
-
Another wrinkle to this story is the problem of flow. In the township of Langley, near Otter park (and several other watersheds) there are streams from which water is seasonally withdrawn by local farm owners for crop irrigation and direct watering. It's my understanding that the recovery strategy implemented by Dr. Pearson et al. includes provisions describing this problem and measures preventing the property owners from using as much creek water, particularly during periods of naturally low flow (summer months). This past summer I spent time working out in Langley with these two fish for a friends M.Sc project out of UBC. Her project is focusing on flow requirements for the SS and ND. I can say from experience that these creeks, especially Bertrand, is extremely susceptible to complete desiccation during summer periods. This reduces the available habitat by 80-90%.
In terms of compensation for these farmland owners - there really isn't any argument to be had. The farmers will be compensated accordingly for the devaluation of their property as a result of the implementation of SARA. The species at risk act was implemented by democratic means, and the implications are quite far reaching despite it's impotent history. If you don't want to foot the bill to protect endangered species, then move to another country, because the representatives in parliament were elected in part on the grounds of caring for the environment and Canada's indigenous species. To put it more plainly, if you don't want to pay your taxes to protect the Nooksack Dace and Salish Sucker, you are the minority.
This outcry undermines the more important issue here: That government officials are leery of adding other species to this list to avoid these types of public outcries.
-
In terms of compensation for these farmland owners - there really isn't any argument to be had. The farmers will be compensated accordingly for the devaluation of their property as a result of the implementation of SARA. The species at risk act was implemented by democratic means, and the implications are quite far reaching despite it's impotent history. If you don't want to foot the bill to protect endangered species, then move to another country, because the representatives in parliament were elected in part on the grounds of caring for the environment and Canada's indigenous species. To put it more plainly, if you don't want to pay your taxes to protect the Nooksack Dace and Salish Sucker, you are the minority.
This outcry undermines the more important issue here: That government officials are leery of adding other species to this list to avoid these types of public outcries.
That's probably because the majority still don't realize that the tax dollars that they are so ready to throw around, need to come out of their pockets!
-
What I think a lot of you are missing is that the vast majority of farmers in the Fraser Valley are dairy farmers with just enough land to grow enough feed for their animals. Very few farmers have extra feed which they can sell to other farmers who do not have enough to last the year. A large riparian zone setback will be devastating to many farms, as they will not be able to produce enough feed for their animals. For most farmers, buying feed is not affordable, and neither is purchasing land for more feed. This is why there is so much resistance by farmers, and why it would be so difficult to compensate them adequately for their loss.
-
That's a good argument but takes everyone down a slippery slope......
The farmers are willing to sacrifice the salish sucker, the loggers are okay with sacrificing the little owl, the fish farmers don't worry much about the wild salmon..... Where does it stop?
-
What I think a lot of you are missing is that the vast majority of farmers in the Fraser Valley are dairy farmers with just enough land to grow enough feed for their animals.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Pasture farming accounts for less than 20% of the land farmed in the Fraser Valley, with 60% being used for field crops. This is all pasture, not just dairy, although cattle farms, milk cows & beef cows, account for 50% of the livestock farms, their total area is still quite small compared to field crops. Now, certainly, the cattle farmers and other livestock farmers for that matter, are going to be more severely affected by the setback, for the reasons you mention, but they are far from the "vast majority" of farmers. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that it is the small livestock farmer (the one raising more "organic" livestock, grazed in pasture, as opposed to the large "factory" farms, which are becoming more predominant in the Fraser Valley) that are going to be hit hardest. Perhaps what we need is a paradigm shift, whereby we start eating less meat and dairy and take the pressure off the agricultural land. Of course that will just drive down the price of the farmer's produce (as demand decreases), whereby the farmer is encouraged to maximize his production efficiency to cut costs leading us back to the problem that caused us to cut our consumption in the first place.
-
Sorry, my thinking was more directed to the eastern Fraser Valley (Chilliwack - Agassiz), where the Salish Sucker has recently made news. I do not believe your numbers are correct for this area, but would be happy to find out where they came from. My point was, however, that the resistance farmers (especially smaller farmers) are demonstrating is because a riparian zone setback will impact their livelihood immensely. Not to mention that they find it difficult to have a setback imposed on ditches and field swales that they made.
-
These ditches and field swales were made by the farmers to replace the small creeks and ponds that had been filled over the years (before regulations were in place to prevent this). That's where the salish suckers lived before the ditches were made.....
-
--the 30 m setback must be a default when no prescription or mitigation is proposed or in place?
--there are many ways to affect water temp and flow... in particular if these critters are now living in man made ditches that have replaced their natural habitat... some portion of the ditches must be able to be moved or routed into rearing or holding areas for breeding and protection from predators, lack of water or unhealthy water temperatures or chemical changes.
--It may turn out that the default measures are required or even that they are not enough to adequately protect these species. The intent of the SARA was to have some general rules to hopefully stop or reduce harm to the listed species while research is focused and funded to come up with a viable plan. It is not intended that these default rules be implemented in perpetuity unless it is found they are required.
-
Sorry, my thinking was more directed to the eastern Fraser Valley (Chilliwack - Agassiz), where the Salish Sucker has recently made news. I do not believe your numbers are correct for this area, but would be happy to find out where they came from.
My numbers are from a Ministry of Agriculture and Lands brief on agriculture in the Fraser Valley Regional District (this is the eastern Fraser Valley including the municipalities of Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Hope, Kent and Mission, as well as the electoral districts of Hatzic Prairie, Nicomen Island, Hemlock Valley, Sumas Mountain, Columbia Valley, Popkum, Yale, and Boston Bar). The brief was put out in 2001 (so the numbers are 10 years old), but I do not think the numbers have changed dramatically in nature of the farming done in the area, only in the number of farms (there is a growing trend towards larger "factory" farms in the Fraser Valley as elsewhere). The brief does show that while the number of farms had shrunk by 10% (the area farmed also declined by 10%) in the 10 years previous (from 1991-2001), the number of livestock had not shrunk as much, and in some cases (poultry and pigs) had actually increased. The number of dairy farms specifically had declined by 19% in those ten years while the area of pasture lands (both managed and unmanaged) declined by 40%, however, the number of milk cows dropped only 2%. This shows that farmers in the Fraser Valley are consolidating into larger operations, and most are really pushing the limits on their land (the fact that average farm size in the Fraser Valley remained steady at 18.3 hectares in that time, shows that the farms are not getting any larger in area, only more crowded). This is why many farmers (especially livestock farmers) are so concerned about the idea of ANY setback as they are already on the margins with little wriggle room. Does this mean we need to give up on a species at risk? Or does it mean we need to understand the farmers concerns and find a solution that saves a threatened species without unfairly penalizing the farmer.
-
people work there whole lives to pay for the land they live on and or farm on.
I can't imagine loosing any land I own to a government.
-
people work there whole lives to pay for the land they live on and or farm on.
I can't imagine loosing any land I own to a government.
The expropriation of privately owned land, in whole or part, by the government for public use and benefit, is as old as the country itself. While the power of expropriation is often recognized as an important component of government, the result is almost always a traumatic experience for the property owner. The laws governing expropriation in Canada have undergone a complete restructuring in the last 20 years, and almost all expropriation statutes across the provinces (BC included) now provide for just compensation. While this compensation has shifted from the concept of "value to owner" to "market value", subsequent revisions to provincial expropriation statutes have resulted in a hybrid formula that tries to find a middle ground between "the fair market value" at the time of expropriation, and the value to the owner (taking into considerations the unseen costs of moving or changing the interest in the remaining land once the expropriated land is removed). According to Antoine F. Hacault of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, Barristers & Solicitors, the current federal Expropriation Act, 1985, was "enacted to clarify the subjective system of expropriation and remove the arbitrary features associated with the [then] existing law." Now each province has its own Expropriation Act, and the purpose of these remedial statutes "is to adequately compensate the owner of land, which is taken from him to serve the public interest."
If Canadian statutes since 1886 (the date of Canada's original Expropriations Act) recognized the "traumatic experience" that expropriation inflicts on land owners, and Section 31(1) of BC's own Expropriation Act, 1996, recognizes the courts obligation to "...award as compensation to an owner the market value of the owner's estate or interest in the expropriated land plus reasonable damages for disturbance...," and Section 64 (1) of SARA states that "the Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide fair and reasonable compensation to any person for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of [the establishment of critical habitat under the relevant sections of the act]." How is it then that the government is now able to now change the rules and say they are going to expropriate land without compensation? This is another example of the Liberal Government's arrogance and contempt for the laws of the people they serve, where they feel they can simply write a new law if the present laws do not suit their current agenda. While I am happy that the Liberals have become born again "environmentalists", like the ill fated carbon tax that came before it, this appears to be another poorly conceived and now borderline criminally executed plan.
-
My numbers are from a Ministry of Agriculture and Lands brief on agriculture in the Fraser Valley Regional District (this is the eastern Fraser Valley including the municipalities of Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Hope, Kent and Mission, as well as the electoral districts of Hatzic Prairie, Nicomen Island, Hemlock Valley, Sumas Mountain, Columbia Valley, Popkum, Yale, and Boston Bar). The brief was put out in 2001 (so the numbers are 10 years old), but I do not think the numbers have changed dramatically in nature of the farming done in the area, only in the number of farms (there is a growing trend towards larger "factory" farms in the Fraser Valley as elsewhere). The brief does show that while the number of farms had shrunk by 10% (the area farmed also declined by 10%) in the 10 years previous (from 1991-2001), the number of livestock had not shrunk as much, and in some cases (poultry and pigs) had actually increased. The number of dairy farms specifically had declined by 19% in those ten years while the area of pasture lands (both managed and unmanaged) declined by 40%, however, the number of milk cows dropped only 2%. This shows that farmers in the Fraser Valley are consolidating into larger operations, and most are really pushing the limits on their land (the fact that average farm size in the Fraser Valley remained steady at 18.3 hectares in that time, shows that the farms are not getting any larger in area, only more crowded). This is why many farmers (especially livestock farmers) are so concerned about the idea of ANY setback as they are already on the margins with little wriggle room. Does this mean we need to give up on a species at risk? Or does it mean we need to understand the farmers concerns and find a solution that saves a threatened species without unfairly penalizing the farmer.
I understand how you came by these numbers (http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/agbriefs/FVRD.pdf). However, you fail to recognize that what you were comparing previously was pasture land to field crops. There is not a lot of pasture land when compared to the amount of field crops, but pasture land is not used that frequently by Valley farmers. Instead, almost all of all farmers' land is used for corn silage,grass silage and hay and alfalfa. Therefore, these crops are listed in the Field Crops category. The brief in question does not break down the Field Crop category further, but a more in-depth study (this time of Chilliwack) by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands explains this more clearly.
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/agoverviews_2006census/Chilliwack_Ag_Overview.pdf
Specifically, pages 7 and 8.
-
This is another example of the Liberal Government's arrogance and contempt for the laws of the people they serve, where they feel they can simply write a new law if the present laws do not suit their current agenda. While I am happy that the Liberals have become born again "environmentalists", like the ill fated carbon tax that came before it, this appears to be another poorly conceived and now borderline criminally executed plan.
I can't comment on other parts of your argument, but I think maybe you're confusing the two levels of government. SARA is a federal law and the BC Liberals have nothing to do with it. BC has no endangered species laws--how's that for stillborn?
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/strategy/background/responsible_e.cfm (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/strategy/background/responsible_e.cfm)
-
The brief in question does not break down the Field Crop category further, but a more in-depth study (this time of Chilliwack) by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands explains this more clearly.
Yes, this one does break it down more clearly (especially for the municipality of Chilliwack, to which you were referring originally) but it still shows that the cattle farms (milk and beef combined) account for 317 of the 828 farms reporting (40%) while dairy cows account for only 156 farms (20%). Now, while I understand that the farmers you are referring to that are growing "feed" for the cattle should also be included in the numbers of farms with field crops, I would suggest that while they are included in those, if they had cows on their farms, they are still only one of the 317 farms with cattle. That's all.
I can't comment on other parts of your argument, but I think maybe you're confusing the two levels of government. SARA is a federal law and the BC Liberals have nothing to do with it. BC has no endangered species laws--how's that for stillborn?
Yes, your are right. I apologize to the Liberals for that jab, I just couldn't resist, it just sounded like something they would do. It still begs the question, when both provincial and federal laws, including SARA itself, point to the right of the land owner to be compensated when land is expropriated for the "public good," why is the talk now of not compensating the land owners? I am particularly puzzled since the Salish Sucker Recovery Assessment itself suggests compensation for landowners that is modeled after the US's Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program:
Some of the riparian habitat is already occupied by permanent structures (buildings, roads,
trails, railways, dikes). Portions of the remainder of actively farmed riparian land could, however,
be removed from production. A model is the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP), a land retirement program administered by the United States Department of
Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. The CREP program, which is available in all states, helps
producers protect and restore wildlife habitat while conserving ground and surface water.
Participation is voluntary; land enrolled in CREP is removed from production and grazing for a
contracted period of 10-15 years. Landowners are paid an annual rent and reimbursed for buffer
planting and maintenance.
In Canada, similar objectives can be achieved through land trusts. While most trusts work by
acquiring land (hence removing the risk of development that could affect biodiversity and
ecosystem processes), some operate in a way analogous to CREP.
(quoted in RECOVERY POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SALISH SUCKER (CATOSTOMUS SP.) IN CANADA, 11)
Was this removed from the Actually draft Recovery Plan? Anyone else notice that the recovery plan can no longer be accessed?