My letter got published just saying check it out

bridge

Dorchester bridge delay
a victory for conservation

In response to the article Bridge musseled out (July 13).

I understand the Middlesex County and Thames Centre deputy mayors are inconvenienced by the delayed bridge reconstruction (due to the wait for a permit from the Ministry of Natural Resources to do a lamp mussel survey).

What is most unfortunate is the survey of the wavy-rayed lamp mussels being delayed, as it is necessary to relocate them safely as they cannot move on their own and can only be moved in warmer months.

When building or rebuilding a bridge over water, a work permit is required under the Fisheries Act to protect fish habitat, and since a mussel is considered a fish, it is essential to obtain the permit.

If the bridge were to be rebuilt without the permit, it would be a federal offence and those responsible would face federal prosecution, not just fines.

The biggest issue here is the time constraints for the mussel relocation, which will impact fish habitat, water quality and the future of the Thames River, which outweighs the delay of the bridge.
Posted By: By Karleen Sirna, BSc Marine and Freshwater Biology, london
Posted On: July 23, 2011
Editors Note: As published in The London Free Press on July 23, 2011.

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/letters/home.html?p=45172&x=letters&l_publish_date&s_publish_date=2011-07-23&s_keywords&s_topic&s_letter_type=Letter+to+Editor&s_letter_status=Active&s=letters

What's in a Mine? How much do we really know about mining?

What’s in a Mine?

When I think mining, traditionally I think digging for ores such as diamonds, gold, silver, etc.   I also think of other metals and minerals such as nickel, cobalt, aluminum, asbestos, potash, etc.  I also know that a lot of mines become abandoned, leaving ghost towns, loss of employment and ecological and health dangers. 

I guess what I really don’t know a lot about is our current mining processes and how they are impacting our natural resources, native communities, economy, ecosystems and our health.   I know that mining is based on supply and demand but who really invests in metals, I thought.   It is not just about that though I never realized how many mined minerals are used in everyday items such as:

• Batteries nickel, cadmium, lithium, cobalt
• Circuitry gold, copper, aluminum, steel, lithium, titanium, silver, cobalt, tin, lead, zinc
• Computer/TV screens silicon, boron, lead, barium, strontium, phosphorus, indium
• Cosmetics and jewellery iron oxide, kaolin, zinc, titanium, dioxide, gold, diamonds, copper
• Electricity coal, uranium
• Eyeglasses limestone, feldspar, soda ash
• Leather clothing borax, chromium, zirconium, aluminum, titanium oxide
• Musical instruments copper, silver, steel, nickel, brass, cobalt, copper, iron, aluminum
• Sports equipment graphite, aluminum, titanium, calcium carbonate, sulphur
• Sun protection zinc oxide
• Steel nickel, iron ore, zinc for rust-proofing
• Vehicles and tires steel, copper, zinc, barium, graphite, sulphur, bromine, iodine
• Wind, solar, hybrids nickel, aluminum, lithium, gallium, indium, germanium

It is also a huge economic influence on our GDP, exports, and employs over 300,000 people in Canada. Canada is the top destination for mining exploration, 16% of the world's spending in this sector.

http://www.mining.ca/site/index.php/mining-in-canada/economic-impact.html

It is also up to the industry itself and other agencies to regulate mining, the government seems to be very limited in regulating and investing in this sector.

Is one resource worth destroying another?  

There appears to be a gray area when we mix mining and fisheries together.  Why? Both are natural resources, technically freshwater is a resource too, and the wetlands and forests surrounding it.   Is extracting one resource worth destroying the rest?  Economically I am sure it made a lot of sense at first with metals being in such a high price and demand.   However, now that we know how the impacts of traditional mining practices effect the environment shouldn’t we learn from our prior mistakes? Tailing ponds are the effluent of mines but where can we dump this effluent, too many natural rivers and lakes have been treated as waste sites.   I think that society needs to be made more aware of this.   How many people actually understand what mining does to the environment? The government needs to be less lenient on the mining industry and more concerned with how mining is impacting our environment.   Mining needs to be regulated in order to decrease dumping sites.   Dumping into lakes and rivers causes harmful alteration and degradation to fish habitat, which in turn impacts water quality, and our freshwater supply.  Mines should have to have permits the same as any other industry or construction that is impacting fish habitat and the water around the area.   I understand that mining is our way to extract our natural minerals, but we are not doing it naturally there are so many machines and chemicals involved.   We need to invest and research in safer sustainable mining processes in order to maintain our mining industry, minerals, and other natural resources.    

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/06/16/condemned-lakes.html

Canada's Forests....The Lumber Industry is Harvest Happy

Clear Cut Harvesting and Replanting

Forests are natural and should be kept this way.   The tree species in our forests are amazing and they are home to wildlife and other fauna.   The trees in our forests are old and replanting new trees to replace them is our way to replace what we are taking for our wood industry.   However we are taking too much too fast and cannot replace and rejuvenate our forests fast enough or sustain it for future generations.  Canada is home to some of the greatest forests in the world and we are killing them to fuel a dying industry.  Like our notes say Canada becomes a very “resource mentality-oriented” and thinks we have a limitless supply of our natural resources and goes harvest happy.  When in actuality we should be thinking of sustainable ways to harvest our trees responsibly.  Yes planting trees to replace the ones we cut down however it is a quick fix and takes years for a tree to grow to a marketable size and even then it is not fully grown in our life time.  We also don’t know how cutting the trees and planting new ones affect the entire ecosystem.   It could have very negative impacts on our forests. 

Plantations or tree farms are ok in order to grow trees for lumber and paper.   It is not 100 % effective but it keeps our forests safe and a sustainable supply for lumber.  How can we harvest lumber safely, efficiently and sustainably?

Enlighten Customers with Added Value

I think that Canadians need to be made aware of how the impact of buying certified wood or paper is helping improve our forestry industry.  Do we really know how the wood ended up at Home Depot or where that paper we wrote our grocery list on came from?   If we are made more aware not only by “enlightening” us on our wood products but what processes brought them here, was it made in Canada, where was it cut from, etc than maybe we would be more concerned for our forests and trees on a local, provincial, and national level.  

I don’t really think the certifications are “schemes” but necessary to take precautions to protect our forests as a natural resource.  We also need to have more knowledge of the lumber market and the government needs to have this knowledge in order to make codes and standards for lumber. 

I also believe there should be more added value in our wood products, not only for our own use, but for exporting to other countries.   Other countries by Canadian wood and its just raw lumber, and then they have to do the added value themselves.   If Canada had some sort of certification or regulation on added value of our wood products this would add more jobs to the lumber industry, and better products to compete with internationally.  This means that each log must be cut shorter, smaller and with natural defects, and more cost-efficient ways to cut the wood.   With “Added Value”, comes more technology, which intun is expensive making the wood more expensive to process increasing the retail value of the wood.   Added value is definitely, the way of the future for Canadian Lumber but more research and development is needed to make our industry and natural forests sustainable.

For more on added value please see:

 http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/fi-if.nsf/eng/fb01372.html

Recalling Observer Days to Explain Bycatch and Over-Harvesting in Commercial Fishing

Now, I am not too familiar with fishing in international waters.   I worked on Commercial Fishing Vessels in British Columbia as an At Sea Fisheries Observer.  Other Countries have this program as well as Electronic Monitoring to observe what is being caught on each vessel.  My role as an observer, was to provide the skipper with their quota, and observe what was caught in each tow.  I was on trawlers, which as we know, are not the best at reducing by-catch and are what caused the cod collapse out east. 

  However, Fishermen are very cautious and conscious of what they are catching.  If they have a target species they track it on their fish finders, they know the depth to fish at to reduce bycatch.  There are mid-water nets, hard bottom nets and soft bottom nets, as well as interchangeable cod ends with smaller mesh.  Fishermen have been fishing the waters for a long time they know where the hot spots are, when fish are spawning, time of day that the water is most clear, etc.  They are also very conscious of market size, fish mortality, and prohibited species. Some fish unfortunately die upon the time they are dumped on deck, such as Turbot as mentioned in the notes 79 % of Turbot are undersized.   Because of this, all turbot is considered marketable and must be retained, even though they are not of a marketable size.  Prohibited species such as Pacific Halibut have different mortality rate based on their size and time on deck and are removed as quickly as possible. Some species of concern are often retained because the Fishermen are rewarded for landing them and they are already dead, so it is in their best interest to land it. 

If fishermen do overfish their quota of a certain species by accident, they can trade quotas, buy quotas from other vessels or even carry over to the next year without penalties.  This is because they are still landing what they do catch and getting paid for it. It is not their fault they overfished or caught an excess of bycatch of a marketable species.   Fishing is an expensive business, there are many costs for a vessel and the vessel themselves make only a small portion of what the company they offload for makes.  Fishing in international waters is much more difficult to control there should be an observer program in place or electronic monitoring in order to regulate harvesting and bycatch.

On Regulating Over-Harvesting

As someone who worked in the industry, unfortunately, I really don’t think we can regulate harvesting within the EEZ, let alone beyond the 200 Nautical Mile Limit.

Personally, I was never much of a fish or shellfish fan, mainly for the texture of shellfish, and I never really ate fish that wasn’t battered.  However, living on the west coast and working in the industry, nothing is better than fresh caught wild fish.  That being said, here in Ontario, I never really know what I am ordering or what’s in the grocery store.   In restaurants I usually go with Alaskan Pollock, because I know it is sustainable, and I was on Pollock boats I know what it is and want to support it.  I also know that the other fish that are usually more expensive are species of concern such as Wild Halibut or Salmon. 

I agree that consumers should be aware of what they are eating, Guelph was doing DNA barcoding on store bought fish.   But how much do customers know or care.  I have relatives that were convinced they should eat Wild Pacific Salmon as opposed to Farmed Salmon.  How many of you know that Pacific Salmon die after they return to native rivers, the concern is harvesting salmon before they have spawned?  The main concerns are harvesting before spawning occurs, which means no fry for future stocks, or harvesting salmon that is too young and too small.  The salmon fishery uses seine nets, once salmon are caught commercially they have a low chance of surviving if returned to sea.  

Be aware of what your buying, look for tags, especially if you buy a whole fish.   One of my “land jobs” was to tag Halibut, this is not what you might think.    When the Halibut is landed, it is offloaded either fresh or frozen from long line boats.   I was given tags that were numbered, and a tag gun (like in a retail store) and had to tag each fish by the fin.  Each tag said that the fish was Wild Caught Pacific Halibut, and without that tag they were not legally allowed to be sold.   Why not keep these tags of certification or “seal of approval” for the fish that we buy from markets or restaurants. 

Water Use, What you can do to cut yours and save money!

Water Use

In my opinion, individuals should look at ways that they can conserve water at home and in their workplace.  If there is an opportunity to save water then they should take it because it contributes to water conservation but will save them money in the long run.  Whether its simply turning off water when not using it, storing drinking water, or installing water reducing devices such as toilets and faucets.   If people also talked to their employers about ways to reduce water use and cut down on their water uses employers might be willing to make the switches as well.

In a larger perspective for cities and metering, the Action H20 Water Sustainability Charter representing the commitment of municipal councils across Canada to achieving water conservation goals. The goals stated in this charter are for each municipality to agree to the following:

• Recognize that water supply is limited and commit to living within our local water budget.

• Recognize that water sensitive development and water conservation will lead to environmental health benefits which have positive impacts for individuals, families and communities.

• Commit to offsetting all growth in water demands through conservation and will articulate this as a formal goal in our community’s official planning documents.

• Commit to building a local government capacity to plan and implement water conservation initiatives.

• Commit to address governance challenges to better engage the public and enable meaningful local action in pursuit of overall watershed health.

If each municipality signs this charter they are agreeing to work together towards regional and local water conservation efforts.  This charter is a way to act locally or regionally as an attempt to conserve Canada’s freshwater as a whole. 

http://canadawaterweek.com/sites/angelo.7thfloormedia.com/files/documents/ACTION_H2O_charter_1-1%201.pdf

Renters vs Owners

According to Statistics Canada’s “Uptake of water- and energy-conservation devices in the home” based on the Households and the Environment Survey (HES) cheaper devices were more popular, owners were more likely to conserve than renters, higher income homes were more likely to conserve, and the longer people dwelled in their home the more likely they were to install water conserving devices. 

 

In my Watershed Management class we discussed the idea of government incentives for individuals, homeowners and landlords. The idea was that with money and ownership being huge factors to installing low flow and low volume devices there should to be some sort of government incentives or assistance provided to individuals.  

 

If individuals are provided with facts on how the water conservation will save them money on a water bill they will be more likely to switch.  My aunt says her toilets have saved her a lot of money.  There is a program that allows people to recycle old refrigerators why not do the same with toilets, or have hardware stores provide a disposal and discount for those that recycle their old toilets. 

Renters were found less likely to have water-conserving devices installed than owners, which is assumed that they may have less freedom than owners.  Therefore the government should try to target landlords and apartment building superintendents to purchase and install these devices in their buildings because tenants are less likely to have control over these issues.

If there was a program offering low-flow showerheads and low-volume toilets in bulk amounts at flat or fixed rates landlords would be more likely to have these devices installed in their buildings.  Perhaps renters could vote on whether they would like to have these and how it would reduce rent, utility costs, and other building fees. 

1.    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011001/article/11365-eng.htm

Bottled Water, one of the most common daily mistakes!

Personally I used to buy a lot of bottled water, but more for my own convenience it was easier to buy a case and grab one as I needed it.    Now my family uses a water cooler where we go and fill the bottles up and bring them home and use the dispenser with a hot and cold tap for our convenience.   This is a lot cheaper than cases of water but still I am not sure what we are actually paying for.  We mainly like the cooler for the fact that it’s colder than the tap.  That being said, I drink a lot of water throughout the day, which is recommended 8 glasses or whatever.  I prefer to use a reusable water bottle like a nalgene or even a used powerade bottle and fill it about half full freeze it and then pour tap water in it and let the ice melt on it’s own.  The water is colder and tastes so much better.  Besides when I am done, I can refill it.  Easier and cheaper than going and buying another bottle right? When you’re traveling its just more convenient you can carry an empty water bottle and go fill it up at a fountain just makes more sense (logically, and ecologically). 

The fact that bottled water standards are low is rather sketchy to me.  Has anyone ever visited a water treatment plant? There is so much cleaning and standards.  There is a whole Drinking Water division of the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Clean Water Act, Source Protection. Please see the link below for more information:

http://www.portal.gov.on.ca/ONT/portal61/drinkingwater/DWQuality?lang=en

Farming, its natural and sustainable and needs more money invested.

My rant is fueled again by my discussion boards for my class where the unit is Agriculture and our topics were on biotechnology in farming, family vs corporate farming, intensive livestock farming, and farming subsidies.   My class is Environment and Resources and the boards were very much one sided saying farming today is unsafe or unnatural, not sustainable, unfair treatment of animals, etc.  Which on one hand they are right, however they were not answering the questions and it really irritated me.  I am from London, I went to RMC, I knew farm kids, I went to Guelph, I knew the Aggies, and my dad works in the industry.   It hit me close to home plus both my parents' extended family had farms.  So here are my arguments.  

Biotechnology 

I agree that Biotechnology is necessary in today’s Agriculture world.  My dad works in a plant that makes feed for turkeys, pigs, and other livestock.   The feed is formulated for each species and each use.   They use natural ingredients such as corn, wheat, hay, grains, etc but also put in extra nutrients and each farmer provides their needs in order to ensure they are getting the proper food for their livestock.   Without this food the farmers would have to grow their own corn and grains and only be able to support their own livestock during the months that they harvest these crops.   With this Biotechnology food advantage farmers can focus on their livestock and also the feed changes as the animals grow ie) chicks have different food then young adult chickens, roosters have different food, egg laying chickens have different nutrients than meat raised poultry.  Feed formula is made by veterinarians and animal nutritionists based on research.  These are provided to the plant, each species has a starter blend.   Feed is medicated for each developmental stage, once animals are ready for the meat market they are fed plain feed with no additives to ensure they are safe for human consumption.   

Family VS Corporate Farming

I think that it is important to buy produce locally.  I think its relative where you live.   If you live in a small town, or a town where you have to drive through the country and pass family owned farms that have a vegetable stand you would be more inclined to stop and buy from them.  If you live in the city it is easier to go to the grocery store.   I love buying from fruit and vegetable stands some even used to be around in the city on the side of the road or in parking lots.   I see them less and less I am not sure if it is because the farms are gone or that there are city laws against stands in public areas. 

I said my dad worked for a feed company, they prefer to buy from local farms cause it is cheaper but they have less supply than from the corporate farms’ crops.  Corn is expensive but the better choice.  Nutreco is attached to Cold Springs in Thamesford, which is a Turkey Farm supplier and processor and owns a lot of local farms, which are family run.   They own farms, supply the feed and in-turn take the turkeys back for processing.  The farms are run by families, which are “employees” they live on the farm and run it but are paid by the company. This provides hope and potential for family farms, instead of being bought out they are paid for their work and are provided with farm land and a house.

 

Intensive Livestock Farming (FEEDLOTS)  

This generated a lot of typical responses: eat free range meat, we eat too much meat, it is unnatural to keep animals in cages.    All of these are very valid animal welfare issues but it did not really address what we were asked.  First off I disagree that this is an unnatural process.  Farmers have been breeding, harvesting and selling livestock for hundreds of years.  How can traditional ways of feeding one’s family be unnatural? We can argue that the practices are “unnatural” and not proper ways to treat animals.  Or we eat too much meat and farms with vegetables or grains are more sustainable or natural. 

The question asked was do intensive livestock farms represent the natural evolution off farming in an era marked by increasing competition?
I would argue yes it is representing the natural evolution of farming in an era with increasing competition.  Lets face it we eat meat we need it, it is how we base our meals at home and in a restaurant. It's an ugly process, but what isn't it's an industry.

If farmer’s have developed ways to safely produce meat in mass quantities why not support it? I will return to the turkey farm scenario, because it’s not all red meat that is slaughtered poultry is too, some people don’t eat red meat because of how its raised when turkey and chicken are the same.     The turkey feed is produced with vitamins and minerals for chicks, and the medication changes as the chicks grow.  The feed becomes plain by the time the turkeys are market size and ensures meat that is safe for human consumption.  The turkeys are then taken back to the plant to be slaughtered…I won’t say how but it is the most natural way. 

Farm Subsides Problematic or Beneficial?

Farm subsidies should benefit the farmer, the economy, and the government or company, which is providing the subsidies.  The Federal Government has the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as well as Provincial Ministries of Agriculture.   The resources are there.  The problem is how to invest and divide the money between the provinces, each province is going to have different farming needs as we have seen in the graphs on the slides.  It is up to the provincial agencies to determine what is necessary.  

I read an article from CBC that was published in 2004 that says:
“Farmers in Europe received subsidies of about $6 a bushel, U.S. farmers got $2.50 a bushel, Canadian farmers received subsidies of only 40 cents a bushel.” 

In this case yes subsidies are just creating more problems and costing farmers more money: “Farmers have found that their expenses are rising while their profits are dwindling.”

Here lies the problem all of Canadian farmers were being treated as a whole, which yes they are all equal, however in this case the subsidies are much lower.   A provincial level of subsidy is much better, think about employment insurance you apply to the federal government service Canada, but it is Employment Ontario that helps you find a new job.

Also, the territories are often left out there were 200 farms in the territories 170 in the Yukon and 30 in the Northwest Territories and none in Nunavut.   These farms are much smaller, averaging under 150 acres.   Territory farm operations are often unique because they commercially harvest wild animals such as reindeer, musk-oxen and horses.  Hay is the most produced crop in the territories.

The territories, as well as other areas throughout Canada do have smaller family farms and are often unnoticed.  Farm subsidies are a must and must be determined by province or better yet by regions.  If the government delegates them properly we can invest in agriculture in our “have not provinces” in hopes to make them “have” provinces.    

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/agriculture/subsidies.html

 

My Recent Heart Break....Don't worry it's nothing like determental to my health..Welcome to Banks Island

For my online class through University of Guelph Distance Education I have fallen behind due to well everything that has happened to me in the past month.   But July is a new month, so I must catch up.  I am taking Environment and Resources and I had to watch this video on Banks Island and my heart sank.   http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=428. 

Here is my take on it that I posted to my discussion boards: 

First off that video officially broke my heart because I know that we need Arctic Research in Canada, I even saw the steps during my short stay in Winnipeg.  I would like to argue that the scientific observations based on traditions of the local people do not provide empirical evidence.    The people of Banks Island have been living there for many generations and have passed down the traditions of hunting and fishing in order to survive and the populations of food sources have remained sustainable.  

As mentioned in the video food stocks are declining.   The permafrost lake draining to the ocean and taking this freshwater fish supply, is huge.   Not only did it remove the fish from the Island, that stock is officially gone because freshwater fish cannot adapt to saltwater they will eventually die because they cannot adjust to the ions.   Anadromous fishes such as salmon, that spend all or part of their adult life in salt water and return to freshwater streams and rivers to spawn, and sometimes die after returning, and now have no lake to return to. 

For Anadronamous Fish see http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/edu_anad_table.html

The fish were food not only for the people but for other fish, polar bears, seals, foxes, birds, it really impacts the whole food chain, which is a huge concern.   The lack of sea ice represents a huge climate change, global warming has already hit the arctic.   Without sea ice the seals have no shelter to nurse their young, and seals require a lot of nursing and their milk is very thick and rich in nutrients in order to build blubber which the seals need to survive the harsh winters.  The Polar Bears need the Sea Ice to hunt the seals.  The lemmings are gone and they were a huge food source for foxes, which are hunted by the Inuit for their coat and food, as are seals and polar bears.

Banks Island is just one example I am sure there are others to suggest that they just leave is really not an option when all of the arctic is like this.   They are Arctic people it is their way of life and it is not right to force them out.   We need to protect the Arctic, it has been a great resource for Canadians for generations we owe the First Nations the right to their land.  Where can we expect them to live?   More Native reserves that are restrictive and does not allow them access to their resources they need.   We need to act fast, and Arctic Research is necessary think about the food chain, from fish to seals to polar bears to humans…also what is going on in these freshwater lakes that is causing them to disappear is it just the climate or is there something in the water that is happening in response to a temperature surge? Increases in temperature can have a huge effect on lakes, they can cause nutrient levels to increase and algae blooms or can cause problems in zooplankton, insects and other microorganisms which can affect the fish and other aquatic life.  The increase in nutrients can cause bacteria outbreaks like Ecoli (IE Walkerton) and with less lakes around they need to be aware of the state of each lake. 

My recovery

I am on the road to recovery.  It has been difficult being at home.   I really don't find it that much different same stuff going on, but my medication makes things difficult and I get overwhelmed if theres too much going on or too many people.   I know my allergies are really out of control but my meds make it difficult to tell and my family just gets frustrated with me.  I feel 5 not 25 and its not my fault. I also feel SEA SICK but on land.....only a Marine Biologist would say that, or atleast a Fishery Observer.  The meds are supposed to help me sleep, and they just keep me up.   It's nuts, not me.  I finally got my nasal spray and a puffer and it really helped.   I couldn't sleep well but I tool a gravol this morning and it worked like a charm.  I finally started to catch up on my online class.  I had a great day and feel so much better.  I still can't sneeze but my head feels clear and I can focus.