magazine / ja03
 |
July/August 2003 issue |
|
|
|
REVERBERATIONS
Caribou matters
We wanted to let you know how much we appreciated
the feature on mountain caribou, "Showdown
at the summit" (CG May/June 2003). I have been working
as an advocate of this issue for more than two years, mostly on
the impacts of industrial tourism, such as heli-recreation, on endangered
species and sensitive habitat. There are now only 1,900 mountain
caribou left in British Columbia, and our provincial government
continues to allow heli-hiking and heli-skiing in mountain caribou
habitat as well as entertaining further expansion options for Canadian
Mountain Holidays (CMH) and Wiegele Helicopters.
Katarina Hartwig
East Kootenay Environmental Society,
Invermere, B.C.
Does it matter whether the mountain caribou
go extinct? It does to me, and I believe it does to others in British
Columbia as well. But Gordon Campbell and his Liberal government
don't care at all about mountain caribou — or any other
wildlife, for that matter. That's why CMH got an extension
and expansion for its operation. B.C. is open for business. Campbell
and his government have taken out predators where the caribou are
but lack the will to go further and limit heli-skiing, snowmobiling,
ATVs and logging in the area. This strategy won't work, and
self-regulation by CMH won't work either.
Brenda Freeborn,
Smithers, B.C.
I found the article "Showdown at the
summit" excellent and, for the most part, balanced in its perspective.
However, I take issue with British Columbia's usual villain,
the heli-skier, particularly the CMH heli-skier.
In its entire history, CMH has practised environmental stewardship.
As far as I know, it is the only land user that gives awards to
its employees for innovative solutions to environmental questions.
I saw a herd of mountain caribou in the Selkirks from the air in
1997. It was awesome. To suggest that caribou do not return to feeding
grounds because they heard a helicopter above for literally seconds
or, in the case of landing pads, a couple of minutes, is far-fetched.
One must understand the nature of heli-skiing. The idea is to find
new terrain for every run — never to cross a track. This means
that the helicopter flies far and wide and touches down quickly and
lightly. It is the "butterfly" of recreational vehicles.
Realistically, I doubt there is much, if any, disturbance of wildlife.
What is important is that heli-skiers are the "hawks"
of British Columbia's mountains. They are the first to see —
and to be appalled at — the speed of forest degradation and
the resulting access to so many more users. They see things from
above on a much larger scale, which is exactly why the author used
a helicopter to try to find mountain caribou.
I suggest that the author felt an obligation to present a balanced
view but was probably pressured by the "powder-envious,"
those many other land users who cannot afford the helicopter.
There are many of us who want to use the land. We must make the
individual effort to mitigate our impact. I hope I have the privilege
of seeing mountain caribou again. Maybe hiking, biking or, if I'm
really lucky, heli-skiing. Blaming false villains hardly solves
extinctions. It fuels political tournaments that go on for years
until flora and fauna are all extinct. Kudos to Canadian Geographic
for keeping us informed, but the responsibility still lies with
each one of us. From the bottom up.
Elizabeth Workun
Calgary, Alta.
It was disheartening to read Brian Payton's
perspective on snowmobiles. After acknowledging that snowmobiles
are heavy polluters, Payton writes that he "had forgotten how
much fun they can be" and pointed the snowmobile he was riding
"straight for a berm and pin[ned] the throttle down."
Rick Munro,
Toronto
Old city, new solutions
As a subscriber, I always look forward to
your magazine, and two items in the latest edition caught my attention.
First, I would like to congratulate you on your profile of Tom Hutchinson
in "Smog
sleuth" (CG May/June 2003). I took his undergraduate class
in the late 1970s, and his work helped me to clarify my vision of
what I wanted to do with my life (environmental science and engineering).
While I can't say I am quite as outspoken as him, I do agree
that scientists have an obligation to speak up when the science
says that an unacceptable risk is present.
I am equally of the opinion that scientists should speak up when
a proposed solution to an environmental risk is worthy of mention.
This brings me to the second item that caught my eye, "Suing
city hall." I have lived in Kingston for 13 years and have
watched the ongoing issue of the Belle Park landfill site, as well
as the other problems Kingston faces as an older city (combined
sewer overflow, for example). While your article updates readers
somewhat on this issue, it is not complete, since it doesn't
mention the new initiatives being undertaken at the site to address
the leachate issue or the expensive renovation of our sewer system
to reduce overflow.
The City of Kingston has embarked on a significant applied research
program at the landfill, using phytoremediation to contain and treat
leachate at its source. The program uses specific species of trees
as a hydraulic pump-and-treat system for the main leachate stream
and a fringe coastal constructed wetland to deal with leachate seeps
entering the Cataraqui River. If successful, these remedial strategies
will be expanded to encompass the entire landfill.
Of course, these solutions will not be successful overnight, but
I would hope that the most important message you could convey about
this situation is not the "same old, same old" statement
of Ms. Fletcher but, rather, the fact that the city is willing to
take a very proactive role in reducing any risk presented by this
unacceptable environmental legacy.
Dr. Bruce Anderson
Department of Civil Engineering
Queen's University
Kingston, Ont.
Fine article on Tom Hutchinson, a person
worthy of praise. However, it gives the impression that Tom was
the first to identify the reason for the smoke at the Smoking Hills.
It was an obvious place for him to investigate the effects of sulphurous
fumes, but the source of the smoke — the burning coal —
had been confirmed by numerous scientists.
Dr. J. Keith Fraser
Ottawa
top
Having just read the major articles in the
environment issue — in particular "Smog sleuth" —
I must express both surprise and concern regarding the advertising
material. At least 10 percent (13 pages) of the publication was
devoted to advertising items that contribute to Toronto's bad
air; namely, large sport-utility vehicles and other gasoline-burning
machines. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the environment
concerns expressed in the current edition.
Geoffrey J. Lloyd
Toronto
When time stands still
I read "Picking
new parks" (CG March/April 2003) with great interest. I
have been involved in the public consultation process for the creation
of a national marine conservation area for western Lake Superior
for the past 10 years. When the writer speaks of the almost dysfunctional
consensus-building practice that Parks Canada employs, I know exactly
what she is referring to. I would not be surprised if the conservation
area never goes through. The process will kill it. The frustration
the article talks about is shared by many of us along the north
shore of Superior. I hope Parks Canada gets the message.
David Tamblyn,
Rossport, Ont.
One house for all
Avi Friedman's vision of reasonable and
attainable housing in "The Affordable Architect," is certainly
admirable. The extent to which suburban sprawl has invaded Canada's
farmland, parkland, and open spaces in the last 10 years signals
a need to revisit utilitarian values. As a new wave of home-buyers
feeds the real estate market with baby-boomeresque vigour, there
is no doubt that Friedman's affordable models are abreast of
current trends.
However, if the goal is to reduce the burden on land, materials,
and natural
resources, Friedman should note a far more detrimental trend –
a rise in the
number of people buying homes. As Jianguo Liu of Michigan State
University
explains in a recent issue of Nature, social trends such as divorce
and
children leaving home earlier have caused a spike in the number
of
households built or occupied. Since every household, no matter how
small,
requires a basic level of resources, the result is a decrease in
shared
resources and an increase in the consumption of energy, water, land,
and
construction materials.
While the large estates surrounding Toronto may not be used to
their full
potential, at least they are capable of providing for an entire
family under
one roof.
Katherine Balpataky,
Toronto, Ont.
Fair warning
(Re: "Storm Appeal", CG Nov/Dec
2002)
According to the research, a major tsunami
hits the West Coast of North American once every 200 years. The
last one hit more than 200 years ago. Such a tsunami could have
originated from a fault line off the West Coast or from a fault
line in Alaska. However, a tsunami from Alaska would take several
hours to reach southern B.C., leaving ample time for warning.
It seems to be a matter of pressing urgency to put in place an
effective system that will warn of a tsunami from a distant origin.
Funding should be set aside for a full time local coordinator and
for the necessary equipment. An effective warning system would not
cost much to set up, and would save many lives.
Robert Shepherd,
Ottawa, Ont.
top
Rights or wrong?
The anger that Jennifer Keller expressed
(Reverberations, CG Sept./Oct. 2002) regarding Albert oil and gas
legislation is based on a thought process that is fundamentally
flawed.
If this subject is viewed from an historical and property rights
perspective, the logic of the legislation becomes clear.
The majority of mineral titles in Alberta are owned by the Crown.
A few are owned by individuals and corporations. In all cases where
there is split ownership, it is important to understand how this
came about. When the surface was acquired, the title would have
clearly shown that the minerals were excluded.
The only rational conclusion a purchaser should have drawn was
that the mineral rights owner would have a property right to exploit
their title. All surface owners should have recognized this as a
caveat that was part of the purchase.
Failure to recognize this fact and complaining about the consequences
has no validity.
It is really about being accountable by complying with the original
agreement and respecting the property rights of others.
Ronald Manz,
Calgary, Alta.
When historical revisionism suits the lawyers,
truth is a victim.
The debate among Western Canadian historians about the rights or
wrongs of Metis scrip has not been inconclusive, as your author
suggests, nor has it been restricted to "paid consultants"
such as Thomas Flanagan. Flanagan is correct in stating that "
No one made them sell." Indeed, Charles Mair, the secretary
of the scrip commission along with Father Lacombe, did everything
in their power to make the treaty's scrip non-transferable, so as
to save its recipients from the speculators. But the Metis insisted
they had a right to sell, and the treaty party and Lacombe reluctantly
faced the painful decision to let them have their own way. As Mair
wrote in frustration: " Whether the half breeds were wise or
foolish it is needless to say. One thing was plain, they had made
up their minds. Under the circumstances it was impossible to gainsay
their assertion that they were the best judges of their own needs."
Some months later, when Sir Wilfred Laurier was questioned by the
Opposition about why the Metis had been allowed to barter away their
birthright, he replied that " There is no man who has taken
a stronger view than Father Lacombe against the excesses resulting
from the issuing scrip or who saw less benefit in its results to
the half-breed. But in view of the determined attitude of the half
breeds …" (see page 312 in "Father Lacombe"
by J.G. MacGregor 1975).
Now the Metis are suing the government alleging "the scrip
system was a sham that was never designed to convey benefits on
Metis people." Who's feeding on scrip now ?
K.J. Finley,
Sidney, B.C.
top
|
