magazine / so03
 |
September/October 2003 issue |
|
|
|
Reverberations
Fiery feedback
I really enjoy Canadian Geographic most of the time, but it's not because of perspectives
taken in "Battling the dragon" (CG Jul/Aug 2003).
Current thinking among forest ecologists dictates that fire is a necessary component of
a boreal forest. There was only a brief mention in your article of the "modified-response
zone," where fires are not necessarily attacked outright, and there was no real explanation
of why fires should be allowed to burn. In the rest of the province, the job of fighting
forest fires was made to look glamorous and sexy, not a necessary evil, lest the poor timber
companies' bottom line not look so good.
I would think your magazine could have been a little more progressive in its point of view.
Jonathan Klisko
Canmore, Alta.
A praiseworthy achievement
I have read Canadian Geographic cover to cover for years and have found it to be
informative and well written. However, sometimes it's important to give credit where it is
due. The "Discovery" article "Heat springs eternal" (CG Jul/Aug
2003), missed the best part of the story I think. This investigation into using geothermal
energy from old mine shafts in Timmins was the brainchild of a grade-10 student, Spencer
Hughes, who developed his idea for the Regional Science Fair in Timmins and went on to win
a silver medal at the Canada-Wide Science Fair in 2001. His ideas certainly sparked interest
within the mining and energy communities here and resulted in the study that your article
mentions. At Timmins High and Vocational School, we are very proud of the achievements of
our students, and Spencer certainly deserves to be given credit for a remarkable idea with
real and positive environmental benefits. Bravo, Spencer!
Astrid Steele
Timmins, Ont.
When is hockey not hockey?
Having recently researched the origin of ice hockey in Canada, I was disappointed to read "Far-from-home
game" (CG, Jul/Aug 2003) concerning the Franklin journals
and the claim that Sir John Franklin and his crew played ice hockey. For the record, field
hockey has existed since Egyptian times, and the Franklin information simply confirms that
they played field hockey on the ice. Given our strong British heritage, it was common for
various games to have been played on the ice during the long winter months. The game of cricket,
for example, was played on the ice of Halifax Harbour in the early 1800s. Although it is
now logical to assume that hockey would be played wearing skates, this was not always the
case. There is no evidence to indicate that Franklin and his men played ice hockey wearing
skates, which is an essential requirement of our great game.
Martin Jones
Author
Hockey's Home: Halifax-Dartmouth
Dartmouth, N.S
The bottom line
Re: "Unloaded for bear" (CG Jul/Aug 2003), it is
totally disgusting that Parks Canada can continue to spend massive amounts of money to fight
the side-arms issue.
Park wardens have always been responsible for ensuring ecological integrity via natural
resource management and enforcement activities to minimize human impacts on park ecosystems.
Clearly, enforcement duties of the scope routinely carried out by wardens are sufficient
justification to issue these officers "standard" natural resource peace-officer
tools, which include side arms. The statement that arming wardens would create another police
force is absolute nonsense and continues to erode the morale of dedicated field staff. It
also indicates that senior Parks Canada managers are completely out of touch with modern-day,
resource-protection responsibilities.
Both of the other federal agencies involved in natural resource enforcement (Environment
Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) have been issuing standard tools to their
officers for many years, as have most provincial natural resource agencies. Has this created "new
police forces"? Absolutely not. On the contrary, it has shown that these agencies value
their front-line officers and the roles they perform and want to ensure that they have all
the tools and the credibility they need to function in their duties.
Parks Canada needs to be reminded that ecological integrity, not creating new revenue-generating
markets, is its primary responsibility.
I spent 26 years in the National Park Warden Service, 21 of those as a chief park warden.
I retired from Parks Canada in 1997, before the "Agency" and new political priorities
became a reality.
Allan F. Gibbs
Moonstone, Ont.
Farm facts
Dawn Goss's photo essay "Shadow of a drought" (CG May/June
2003) is as fine an article as this 38-year cattle rancher has ever read of the trials
of real families who produce food and care for and about this country's agricultural land.
So it was with no little dismay that I read in the same issue "A recipe for disaster?," Ingeborg
Boyens' review of Stuart Laidlaw's book Secret Ingredients: The Brave New World of Industrial
Farming.
Laidlaw's characterization of the true nature of modern agriculture as "an industry
made up of large, vertically integrated corporations, crops genetically modified in the laboratory,
animals lined up in cages in virtual factories" is unfounded.
Statistics Canada's 2000 agricultural report indicates that almost all agricultural land
is owned and worked by individuals, families or family companies. While most food is marketed
by large corporations — processed and packaged to suit consumer whim — they did not grow
it.
Canada's average cattle ranch has fewer than 100 mother cows, and even the largest — Douglas
Lake Cattle Company, with 22,000 head on more than half a million acres — is not vertically
integrated: it does not finish, slaughter or sell steaks. Nor does it have caged animals.
Not only is the supposedly extinct "plaid-shirted family farmer" the average guy
out there today, but he is working 80 hours or more per week just to survive financially.
According to the Laidlaw-Boyens crowd, he should not use either pesticides or pest-resistant,
genetically modified crops. Am I to assume that he should spend his spare time hand-picking
weeds and bugs in his wheat crop for the two cents he gets from each loaf of bread sold?
Modern feedlots and slaughter plants are necessarily large. No family farm can afford the
environmental review process or the wages of federal meat inspectors for a few animals. Perhaps
the author and reviewer would send me the names of food corporations making huge profits.
I'd like to buy some shares and cash in on their success.
Gord Scheller
Lillooet, B.C.
For the record
"Unsafe assumption" (CG May/June 2003) may have
left your readers with a misleading impression of the safety of children's sleepwear. The
article said that "flammability rules for children's sleepwear remain strict." It
also said, "The Canadian Apparel Federation … can't say for certain that no treated
pyjamas are imported."
Regulations for children's sleepwear are, indeed, quite strict, including design specifications
(such as tight-fitting sleeves) and restrictions on the use of more flammable fibres (such
as cotton). All children's sleepwear must meet these standards.
Regarding the second quote, it would have been more correct to say that there is no record
of these chemicals being used in children's garments and that flammability regulations specify
other means of ensuring safety.
As a responsible industry association, we would be happy to provide you or your readers
with more information about this or other topics of concern.
Bob Kirke, Executive Director
Canadian Apparel Federation
Ottawa
I have been an industrial research-and-development chemist in Canada for 35 years. During
that time, I have tried to focus on finding the most environmentally appropriate solutions
to products and processes, with the health and safety of plant personnel, end-users and the
general public in mind.
The article "Unsafe assumption" (CG May/June 2003)
correctly points out that attempts to solve one concern can sometimes lead to new environmental
problems and correctly notes that a more holistic approach is more appropriate, albeit perhaps
more complex to execute. Such articles can be valuable in helping the general public to appreciate
how they can contribute to dealing with problems like this one. I believe that the effectiveness
of an otherwise excellent article was thrown away, however, by including the following quotation
attributed to Mehran Alaee: "When are we going to learn to respect chemicals and use
them as little as possible?"
This is a typical misconception that often surfaces in articles about the risks involved
in the use of specific chemicals. It contributes to the fear-mongering about "chemicals" and
the feeling that "natural" is better. It ignores the fact that many "naturally" produced
materials can be quite toxic to people and/or animals. The key point is that widespread use
of some chemicals without a full understanding of their properties and toxicology can lead
to health and safety problems.
The work of scientists such as those mentioned in the article is very important and deserves
our full support and appreciation. They should be careful, however, not to undermine that
support by making comments such as the one quoted in the article.
Bob Fanning
Toronto, Ont.
Tested and inspected
I would like to ease some possible concerns that readers may have from your interesting
article, "The diatom omen" (CG March/April 2003). Canadians should feel reasonably
safe that the commercially harvested shellfish they eat are free from unacceptable levels
of harmful algae toxins.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), together with the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and Environment Canada, delivers the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program. Under
this program, the harvesting of bivalve molluscan shellfish is controlled in the tidal waters
of Canada. Harvesting is prohibited for clams, mussels, oysters and whole scallops in waters
where unacceptable toxin levels have been detected.
I emphasize that CFIA's biotoxin monitoring is proactive: the goal is to close fishing grounds
before potentially contaminated shellfish can be harvested. As a result, there have been
no illnesses reported from eating commercially harvested shellfish in Canada for 15 years.
CFIA routinely tests bivalve mollusc samples from hundreds of harvest sites annually. In
2002, the agency conducted 20,000 analyses for either paralytic shellfish poisoning or amnesic
shellfish poisoning in bivalve molluscs collected from locations in Atlantic Canada, Quebec
and British Columbia.
Readers who would like more information can visit CFIA's website at www.inspection.gc.ca.
Stephen J. Stephen
Fish, Seafood and Production Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa
top
* Letters may be edited for length, accuracy and liability.
|
