Hello All,
The following quotes are from the March 17, 1997 issue of the Alberta Report (Page 6, "Endangered Species overkill")
"......The U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA), like Bill C-65, emphasizes central command, severe punishments, and plentiful Lawsuits. Since its introduction in 1973, Washington has seized property on a grand scale, with no payment to landowners. The American Spectator reports that over 25 million acres of land have come under temporary or quasi-permanent federal control-the equivalent of the states of Massachusetts Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut combined. "We've watched in horror as Canada tries to replicate the mistakes we've made down here," says Alliance for America president Bruce Vincent.
Sections 32 and 33 of the act state that no person shall damage or destroy the residence of any representative of an endangered species. Residence is defined as "a specific dwelling place, such as a den, habitually occupied by an individual species during all or part of its life cycle." Section 60 states that court action may be taken against a person who "caused or will cause significant harm to a listed endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat."
What exactly is critical habitat? According to C-65, it is "habitat that is identified as critical to the survival of a wildlife species in a decision under section 24." In turn, section 24 says critical habitat will not be defined by statute but by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. COSEWIC, under the act, will determine what species are at risk, how much risk, where the habitat is critical and advise the minister on what should be done. COSEWIC will be composed of no more than nine members, appointed by the environment minister. These non-elected officials would in effect control private property near to or occupied by any endangered species.
Under section 60, the litigant may claim an order requiring the defendant to "refrain from doing anything" that in the court's opinion "may constitute or be directed towards an offence, or may prevent an offence." According to section 84, if a person is convicted of an offence, the court may in addition to fines and/or jail time, "prohibit the person from doing any act or engaging in any activity that could" in the court's opinion "result in the continuation or repetition of the offence." In less technical terms, there goes the farm, and likely at the farmer's expense. Section 8 says only that the minister "may," with the Governor in Council's approval, pay for the cost of species conservation. Because property rights are not part of the Charter of Rights, Mr. Pope comments, property owners have little hope of legally defending their financial interests.
Bill C-65 in contrast gives virtually unlimited power to the state. A convicted person may have to "comply with any other conditions that the court considers appropriate for securing the person's good conduct and for preventing the person from repeating the offence." The convicted individual may also have to perform community service. And finally, the burden of proof is on balance of probabilities, and the accused is considered guilty until proven innocent.
At first when I read this article, I was not too concerned. After all, common sense tells me that I'm doing all I can to protect the environment. I even gave up trying to raise sheep for profit after we lost sixteen of our ewes and 50 lambs last year, rather than to attempt to win the long-lasting war against predation by coyotes.
However, my good natured and observant partner Ruth pointed to the picture of a pocket gopher on page 6--part of the article--titled "Plains Pocket Gopher: do not disturb." I told her: "Aw heck, they are just making a joke to make a point," even though the animal shown on that picture looked every bit like one of the critters that I try to control so that I have a bit of hay left to harvest and so that I can do it without busting my harvesting equipment too extensively--a largely unsuccessful fight as well. Further reading of the article appeared to prove me right, because not a single mention of pocket gophers anywhere in the text.
I forgot about it, until I got the March 17, issue of the Alberta Report. There on page 17 of that issue--by popular demand--was a list of the endangered species that deserve our protection in the western provinces and the western Arctic. I thought that it looked reasonable, starting with Anatum Peregrine Falcon, through Fin Whale, Fringed Myotis to Grizzly Bear..... Do your realize that the range of the Grizzly Bear include all of our prairies at one time? Well, what the heck, if anyone wants to re-introduce it here on its native range, that's not going to be too successful. Grizzlies don't seem to thrive too well were there are any people around, but I began to wonder. What if somebody should decide that the grizzly has been deprived and deserves to be given back its original range? Will we all have to move? Cities certainly would play havoc with the environment from the Grizzly's point of view. They would have to be levelled to make room for the grizzlies. That sure would play havoc with the market for farm products, wouldn't it?
The next item on the list was Hare-Footed Locoweed. Now we are talking about something that concerns me quite a bit. I don't know about you, but if I were to find a locoweed on my pastures, I would pull it out, regardless of what kind of feet it had. My lifestock and family deserve a bit of protection too!
I read on: Humpback Whale.........Oldgrowth Speckelbelly Lichen; let's hope that none of them ever find their way onto our land, because then we would have to quit farming. A Humpback Whale would be awfully hard to dispose off without attracting attention. Shoot, shovel and shut up won't help with an animal that size, and as far as the lichen goes, I have no clue whether any of that is on our property or what it even looks like, even if it would be directly in front of my nose. Will anyone tell me what to look out for, or will I be totally at the mercy of the environmental spies that can turn me in to the authorities without even have to pay a dime to do it?
I read on some more: Piping Plover.....Plains Pocket Gopher......Hold it! PLAINS POCKET GOPHER!!!
Now I was definitely concerned. My first reaction was to call the nearest real estate agency and put our land up for sale before the bottom falls out of the market. Then I pulled out the February 24, issue of the Alberta Report and started to make telephone calls. It took quite a while before I became sufficiently enlightened and educated that the Plains Pocket Gopher (geomys bursarius) was native to the central North-American plains and is considered a pest there to the same extent that its slightly smaller cousin is, the Northern Pocket Gopher (thomomys talpoides). Our pocket gophers fall into the latter category, because the range of the Plains Pocket Gopher does only extend into some parts of southern Manitoba. Were its range extends across the border into Canada, the American cousin of our Canadian pocket gophers then promptly change their status from being a pest--whose eradication is encouraged by some states through a bounty--to that of an endangered species (Just like Charles Ng). The lucky farmers there have the advantage of being able to make comparisons in size between the two species. There is a note of caution though. Only an expert can tell the difference between the two species in the absence of having two representatives of the individual species in their hands for observation. The American version of the destroyer of our fields and forage crops has two tiny grooves at the sides of the incisors, so you have to catch one first to be able to tell.
That still leaves open the question of what happens to anyone's land who should be so unlucky to have the American version of the field destroyers claiming squatters rights.
He'll have to quit making hay, because he wouldn't be able to do anything to eradicate them. The alternative of course is then to put the land into an alternative crop that will encourage the critters to move out. However, wait a minute! If he starts to plough under his hayland and pastures in order to switch into a non-livestock enterprise, he'll be breaking the law!! He'll be disturbing the habitat of an endangered species. If he so much as plows one single pass, he might as well shoot himself and his family, because his days of "freedom" will be over forever. If his family should want to live with the consequences of his actions, they won't be able to ever earn enough to even pay the interest on what will be due in fines. Let's hope that he'll be able to sell his land before anyone else finds out what's wrong with it.
It's obvious to anyone trying to make a living from farming that things are becoming rather impossible.
It's also obvious that if any of our friends and neighbours were to propose legislation that changes the status of a species from that of a pest to that of being endangered just because it is looking for asylum on our side of the international border would be considered stark-raving mad! That leaves us with only two possible alternatives. One is that our government is the enemy of all people who don't live in apartments or who are involved in any way with trying to make their living off the land. The other is.....I'll let you figure that out all by yourself.
Lastly, let me suggest that one more species be added to the endangered list: the tape worm. That way we can exact fitting punishment for murderers. The other laws that are being used now to let them get off so lightly don't seem to do the job anymore. At least adding humans to the habitat of endangered species would make it possible to keep our so much appreciated murderers behind bars considerably longer than is customary at present. Mind you, it would also make it impossible to re-introduce the death penalty.
If any of you is concerned about this in any way, please let our glorious leaders know about it. Write them about it. I have heard it said that one telephone call to one of our "leaders" is considered the equivalent of the opinion of 1,000 Canadians, and that one fax or letter is the equivalent of the opinion of 2,500.
The phone calls are free, and so are the letters. Postage is not required when you write to our "leaders." Here is a toll-free telephone number:
[from Danny Guspie] "We are also suggesting that you call 1-800-667-3355 and ask them to patch you through to your member of parliament in Ottawa. Very likely you will be told that it is not possible to do so. EXPRESS YOUR EXTREME DISSATISFACTION for not being able to speak with your member of parliament, except at your cost, as being undemocratic."
And here is the address that requires no postage:
The Honourable _(Minister or MP of your choice)__ House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A4
Here are the details for the party who-dunnit:
The Honourable Sergio Marchi, Minister of the Environment
10 Wellington, Floor 28
Hull, Quebec
K1A 0H3
819-997-1441(Voice)
819-953-3457 (Fax)
E-mail: smarchi@ec.gc.ca
Quote from the homepage of the Honourable Minister:
"Protecting the environment doesn't just mean policy and programs - it means people making sound environmental decisions. Everyone can make a difference.
Getting and using the information, and taking action, is what the Green Lane is all about. It is the fastest, most comprehensive source of up-to-the minute environmental information. It is also a way for Canadians to keep track of the pressing issues my department deals with every day - issues like climate change, endangered species protection, toxic substances and the state of our oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams." [It is obvious that the state of the agricultural sector of our economy is not really that important. It is not mentioned at all.]
If you feel that writing or phoning is not quite sufficient to get something done about all of this (you are probably right if you feel that way), contact me please and we'll discuss what else could be done in addition to the calls and the letters.)
All the best,
Walter H. Schneider
Defeated Sheep Producer, Family and Gender Rights Activist
P.O. Box 62, Bruderheim, Alberta, Canada T0B 0S0
e-mail sheep_@telusplanet.net,
Tel:(403)796-2306
