LETTER: ‘The local war against nature must end’

Article content

I read with special interest the news story indicating the executive of the Kent Federation of Agriculture is seeking a third-party mediator and more input for the local woodlot discussion. Council and administration will need to make a decision.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

LETTER: ‘The local war against nature must end’ Back to video

Is it a case where, after multiple and detailed studies, reports and public input over many months, that this group has a valid request? Or is it a case of frustration in that since this group’s members do not agree with the results of the studies and their conclusions, they will yell loud enough and long enough in the anticipation they will finally get what they want?

This is of interest to me as I was one of the committee members in 2014 who looked at this issue. At the time, a committee was established with representatives from various areas basically consisting of a group, including landowners, who were in favour of some sort of woodlot protection. It also included representatives from the executive of the KFA who claimed they represented all of agriculture and seemed consistently against any form of woodlot protection.

The services of a professional “rural affairs” mediator, Bryan Boyle, were employed. Multiple attempts were made to discuss and reach common ground on areas such as canopy cover, windbreaks, woodlot owner incentives, etc.

It was pointed out that these proposals were supported by recommendations from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and Ontario’s agriculture ministry.

At that time, multiple media reports showed landowners in the American Midwest weeping on TV as their livestock died of dehydration due to the existing climate change-induced drought which, according to recent reports, has only become more intense.

As this attempt to reach some sort of agreement progressed – even though incentives and conciliatory suggestions were proposed that would have benefitted landowners – it became evident we were going nowhere. I recall at one meeting where Boyle threw up his hands and declared to the KFA executive: “Start negotiating or get run over by the bus.” There was a complete unwillingness to agree to any form of a woodlot protection proposal.

At the same time, there was also an impressive misinformation campaign. Who has not heard of the landowner in Lambton County who was fined because he cut a branch off a tree to get his combine up the driveway? Is this really any different than today when a couple of councillors, in desperation, claim Chatham-Kent’s administration is manipulating the present woodlot study?

As history shows, the municipality, through a hired consulting firm and with approval from the KFA executive, ultimately developed and approved the “Natural Heritage Strategy”.

This approach may have had some success if it had included some form of enforcement. But by design it contained the same logic as having a voluntary speed limit on Highway 401 and was therefore doomed to predictable failure.

It was, however, a public relations success for the KFA representatives and a “kick the can down the road” opportunity for the mayor and council of the day. But in terms of woodlot protection, the status quo remained and our woodlots continued to be destroyed.

As an added point of interest, I have been told by friends who are multi-generational dairy farmers in Huron County that they have been part of an effort to send shipments of a dairy-based food supplement to British Columbia to help feed the calves of the prized dairy cattle that tragically drowned in the floods. The major destruction of crops and livestock in BC and across Canada has been mentioned in reports from OFA and OMAFRA as being caused by the consequences of climate change.

This opinion was also clearly stated in a recent article written by Peggy Brekveld, president of the OFA. She writes that “climate change is a real and looming threat” and that agriculture is actively responding. She also mentioned that farmers need recognition for woodlot stewardship, which is a valid request and certainly part of the ongoing discussions in Chatham-Kent council.

This is the very form of leadership that the vast majority of local landowners who are good stewards of their land deserve and desperately need. They do not deserve to have their good reputations smeared by a few rogue landowners who continue to defy common sense “Best Management Practices”.

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the 1,800 astute landowners that the KFA executive claim to speak for are well aware that, for our own prosperity, Chatham-Kent must protect and significantly enhance our tree canopy cover for the benefit of and with special considerations for rural and urban alike. The only path to that end is some form of an enforced woodlot protection program with incentives. This is what the vast majority of our citizens, rural and urban alike, have already requested.

A counter-petition with even a few hundred names does not change this fact. It’s time to accept that our council and municipal administration have worked very hard to resolve this very difficult issue. They have all the data required for an informed decision. The time for partisan intransigence is past.

Accept that no one will ultimately be 100 per cent satisfied. But the local war against nature must end. We have seen enough of the tracks in the snow of desperate inhabitants of our woodlots fleeing their obliterated homes.

Gary Eagleson

Ridgetown