November Update

So it's November, that means this semester is flying by.    I am actually enjoying my classes at Western.  Who would have thought Geography would be something I like, if only I'd known that 4 years ago when I was doing my undergrad.   Biogeography is awesome I wish there was more classes in it, I think that is something I really want to do like understanding geographic ranges of animals linking biology and geography so perfect.  Geomorphology started off fun going in to the forest and having fieldwork labs, which were to use the information for a filed report, which we still don't have a guideline for.  The midterm in it was hard all written had to pick 5 out of 10 questions, hope I did well still don't know my mark in that class, the rest of our marks are from a report and 2 labs we have yet to hand in.  I feel like so uncertain about the class, I like the material its interesting but I don't like the uncertainty, and now we have a lot of math stuff to do like trig equations havent done that since highschool.   My other class is a research methods class, but more on social research, but I like it and am doing a big group project on smoking, I'll get to go do some interviews soon then analyze the data.   My online class is the last for a certificate in Environmental Conservation from Guelph that I started in 2011.  It is Natural Chemicals in the Environment, I like it so far I've learned about pheromones, plant and animal interactions, pesticides (synthetic and natural) and even had to debate that both are equally harmless, next is about herbal medicine.  Pretty soon it will be Christmas, but before that is finals AHHH!  Hope I can do well and get good marks and that they will be good enough to apply fro grad school.  I tried to email a couple profs but no responses, not sure if I should try to go to their offices or follow up, maybe meet with the Environmental Sustainability Program Coordinator again, see what she thinks.  
Oh I forgot most importantly, I am doing a contract for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for some online mapping work.  I finally started in Mid October ( a bit later than I planned).  I like it its pretty interesting, I will do it till the end of December.  I am almost half way done, good experience for the resume and good spare money, since OSAP is being cheap.  I don't get paid till the end but its good money, and they gave me extra work and want me to do more in January.   I hope if I keep doing it maybe I can get a permanent job later. 

Natural Cheimcals In the Environment

So its that time again, my course discussions usually fuel my blog posts, as I sometimes have nothing to blog about and these topics are relevant to current issues.   My online course this term is Natural Chemicals in the Environment and we have been asked to pick sides based on our own opinions right off the bat.  If you know me you know how I feel about these issues and if you don't you are about to.  Regardless keep reading please.
The first topic to debate is whether synthetic pesticides should be banned and only natural ones should be used or if both should be used.  The second is whether medicinal plants should be harvested in an unsustainable way to save lives or if the medicinal plant biodiversity should be saved over the lives of a few people.  Below are my positions. 

I have chosen Position 1: In order to protect the environment and human health only natural chemicals should be used as pesticides and synthetic pesticides should be banned.  I chose this side because I am strongly against the use of synthetic pesticides, as they have been proven to cause problems in air, surface water and groundwater as stated by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring (1962).   Beyond these obvious environmental problems synthetic pesticides have been linked to health problems in humans.  These problems include neurotoxicity such as nervous system damage, respiratory problems, seizures and even death, as well as carcinogenic effects linking to multiple types of cancer, endocrine disruption causing hormonal imbalances which can lead to cancer, and rises in childhood asthma (Draper and Reed).   What continues to make no sense in the synthetic chemical use is that we spray our food with chemicals that we know kill organisms.  If it does that to bugs what does it do to our food, or to us? Should we really be eating it? If we were to use natural chemicals such as aggregate pheromones it would give the pests a false sense of predators which they would avoid it, so if we stick to these or other biological controls our food and our health will remain safer. 

Draper, D. and Reed, M. Our Environment A Canadian Perspective 4^th Edition. Chapter 6. P 215.  Nelson Education Ltd. 2009. 

PART 2: Saving Lives VS Saving Species?

I have chosen Position 2: Protection of biodiversity of medicinal plant products must take precedence over the lives of a few.   This may seem to be a controversial choice, or that I am not being sensitive to those who need medicinal plants, but if the plants are conserved and harvested sustainably then more lives will be saved in the long run.  Medicinal plants are the oldest “medicine” known to man and have been used for 1000’s of years as natural remedies for illness and injuries.  If we have managed to use these plants in a sustainable way for centuries then we should be able to continue to do so.  Unsustainable harvesting of plants, especially medicinal should not be justified for a quick fix to “save lives”.  This would only be suitable for short periods and can cause serious long-term damage to the crops and roots of these plants.  If we protect this biodiversity of medicinal plants we are conserving natural medicine that has been used for centuries to future generations, where as if we harvest it unsustainably it will run out and will not be able to save lives in the future. I also believe that indigenous people should be entitled to have first pick at the crops in their areas before the plants can be cultivated for international sale to meet the global demands.   This is because they have used the plants for generations and cannot afford or have access to synthetic medicines that wealthier countries have. 

 

The cycle continues......Back to School...

So as most would know I am an avid earth and oceans protector.   It is my passion I love the ocean, the world and our animals, and it is my goal to get a job where I can do this or help to protect them in some way.  However the job market in this is impossible and living in London its incredibly hard.  But I try not to let this discourage me.   I apply to every relevant job in the area as well as those outside of the area.   I am pretty proud of my resume and get a good amount of responses to it and positive feedback as well.  So when I do actually get the call for the interview I prepare as best I can and I have had some sketchy ones this past summer.   The last one I went to was for a Team Leader position for a Water Plant.  First of all I have never worked in one, I don't have an operator's certificate that was required and have no manager/supervisor experience (my job experience is limited enough due to the tough field, so how would I gain manager experience).   So that being said I couldn't figure out why I was even called for it, some would say why did you apply for it then, well it was close by and water related I didn't think I stood a a chance but if you apply to these positions that are likely filled internally atleast they know your name in case a position you are more qualified for opens up.    I didn't embelish my resume it says what my real background and skills are.  So anyways I went to the interview, and the receptionist handed me a sheet of questions I would be asked, they were very job specific about water plant maintenance, finance, management, a couple I had no idea and then some that were more genera.  After seeing these I really just wanted to leave but instead I stayed.   There were 4 interviewers writing things down asking questions and me trying to answer and I had to actually say I have no experience in that it was intimidating and hard this went on for about an hour.   But that is not all there was a written component where I was assigned a scenario and had to write a memo, which is hard when you don't know their protocols but I managed to write one.  Then there was a really hard test with a lot of questions about water plant operations and procedures there was lots of chemistry and math and questions about how a plant runs which I had no idea, I am sure I bombed it but I had asked how I could study for it and was told it wouldn't be very hard.  I did my best so not much more I can do.  I also had  a sketchy interview last month what was for a junior taxonomist position at a biological firm, it sounded so perfect what I went to school for.  I knew there would be a test for it involving invertebrates.  I spent days studying for this test and interview I had out all my invert books and notes and did pracitce tests on the internet.  I felt I had prepared.  First of all this firm was located in the basement of somebody's house (not very professional).  After getting into the "lab" I was told to do the test which was a petri dish of invertebrates (mostly bugs), and she expected me to identify them without keys......talk about ridiculous.  So I tried and she told me I was doing well, then she asked me to show her 2 and I was wrong.   Then after that she told me if I didn't know my bugs and would have to relocate she didn't know how to go further than that and did not interview me further.   Talk about rude after driving 2 plus hours to get there she wouldnt even interview me.  It was also 11.00 an hour in a ritzy area of the GTA, to work in a basement who would even do that. 

Anyways, due to frustrations and the fact that I haven't found a permanent job in my field I had applied to go back to school to try to take some upgrades to apply for grad school.   I hope it is the right move, its so hard to break this school-work cycle.  I got into Western and will be taking some geography to go along with my GIS background.   I am going to be taking courses in Biogeography, which seems like a good mix of Biology and Geography, Geomorphology and Hydrology about water systems and cycles, and Geography Research Methods which has projects and qualitative and quantitative methods.  I hope I can do well, although I have biology and GIS I don't really have basic geography but I think that should be fine.  These courses seem relevant to my degree and the type of work I want to pursue and will be good to apply for grad school, that is my plan.  There was only an intro GIS course this term that seems below me the counselor told me I could take it to try to get a good mark but I'm not sure there are some other GIS ones next term that sound more interesting and would expand on my skills.   I also have one course left from my Environmental Conservation Certificate so I am going to take that as well one called Natural Chemicals in the Environment.   Back to school again in order to take more school, call me crazy if you want but I think I need to try. 

Thames River Clean Up at Meadowlilly Woods

Well, I haven't written a blog lately and I thought that I should.  Haven't done a whole lot lately but this week I took part in something that was important to me.  I helped out at a local clean up for the Thames River at Meadowlilly Woods with the Friends of Meadowlilly Woods.  This is a great opportunity to get involved in helping to clean up the local river.   It is quite an eye opener to see what things can be found in the water and along the river bed.   We found lots of scraps of metal, glass, tools, car parts, the usual coffee cups, cans and bottles, pieces of clothing/furniture and even a shopping cart.   I know it could have been a lot worse but it's still pretty bad.  What bothers me the most is how does this trash end up here.  Why are people polluting the river?  They must know its wrong, especially in today's age with all the warnings we have about pollution.   Do people not care about the river or the animals that live in it?   I really don't get how people can still pollute a river this way.  It is just wrong on so many levels.   Do people not understand if they put something in the river it will float further down?  I really want to know how we can prevent people from dumping things into the river.  Do we need more education on water pollution?  Anything dumped into the water will eventually make its way back to us.  Although London's drinking water comes from Lake Erie and Lake Huron, the river eventually drains into these lakes so it is still a concern that it could effect humans through consumption.  Also, indirectly if someone were to catch fish in the Thames and eat it it would have chemicals from the water or if someone went swimming in it too could be harmful if there were toxins.   It just boggles my mind how people can be so careless.   I know that their has been other cleanups and groups doing river clean ups along the Thames which is great and I support it but how can we prevent pollution and dumping all together.  Well maybe we should all do our parts in cleaning up when we walk by the river? Maybe we need steeper fines and better moderation of the river.  Maybe people need more access to the dumps for dumping scraps or more curbside pick up.  Pollution is not good for the animals and plants that live in the river and it degrades water quality which again will affect the drinking water eventually.  You wouldn't want to have to think before you drink, ie think about what could be in the water you're drinking.  So if everyone thought about lawsuits after they pollute maybe they would think twice before dumping trash in the river. 

Canada Day

Well it is Canada Day, the day we celebrate our great country.  As mad as we are at our current government and their cuts to well everything we can't let this damper Canada's Birthday.  Canada is a great country and always has been so lets celebrate it.  Canada deserves a celebration, it has given so much to us, and it deserves us to give back to it.  If Harper won't stand up for Canada it is up to us.   I believe as Canadians we are patriotic and when our government fails us we get really upset because we don't understand how and why our government would do that.  I take it personal when there are cuts to the environmental ministries: Ministry of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources.   These are agencies I dream of working for and cutting them leaves little hopes for me getting a job and not only that it is really putting our environment at risk.  The environment is what makes our country so beautiful, destroying our nature damages the true nature of our patriotic symbols: maple trees, destroying the homes of our wildlife: beavers, loons, caribous, polar bears, etc.   It is their country too.  Lets celebrate the nature of Canada, as well as our culture, and the land.  We may not support our current policies and changes but we need to support Canada.  It is just a matter of how.   I can't support every charity through money which I am asked for on a regular basis but I think by being aware of the issues and willing to stand up for Canada and know that our country is in trouble is the first step.  I am trying my best to make this post positive and patriotic but also realistic, forgive me if I sound pessimistic.  I just wanted to give my rant on Harper but in Honor of Canada. And I think I am not alone in this.

Water Potection, What can I do?

Question #25 of the Roundtable focuses on focuses on source water protection.
Our soft deadline for your answers on the question today and for next week is April 20th.
You are welcome to offer up to 500 words.

Access to high quality drinking water is a precious resource in Canada and our city. We cannot afford to overlook our dependence on it and to sustain eternal vigilance ensuring its protection. In London, we are favoured with access through water pipelines to Lake Huron and Lake Erie, back-up groundwater wells to ensure a secure supply, and treatment plants to ensure our safety.

            

And yet, activities that cause water pollution are everywhere. From the salt we put on our roads, to combined sewer overflows and sewage treatment bypasses that end up in the Thames River during major rain storms, to the nearly unchecked chemical run-off coming from both farm fields and even our residential lawns. All this effluent flows into our streams, into the Thames River, and then into the Great Lakes from which we drink.

            

Periodically, we alert to the problem of water pollution such the Walkerton tragedy in 2000, and it draws our attention for a limited time. However, on the everyday business of ensuring the quality of water resources, the majority of us appear to pay limited to no attention. According to City officials, a survey of Londoners in 2011 illustrated that many Londoners were not specifically aware of the source(s) of their tap water.

           

 The Provincial Government is slowly putting into place "source water protection plans." "Regional source water protection committees" under the Clean Water Act, 2006 are finishing their 5 year task to prepare plans, but definitive plans are not yet in place. The Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, 2002 still has not been declared into force and its regulations have yet to be approved.

            

Do you think we value our drinkable water supplies sufficiently, or do we take drinkable water too much for granted? Do you think it important that the City of London increase awareness about the connection of citizens's household practices and effluent going into the Thames River (e.g., driveway runoff and yard management)? In the face of government's long time frame and modest action on "source water protection," what do you think we should do locally on our own as individuals? What can ordinary citizens do to improve water quality and source water protection?

Answer

Personally I think it is rather alarming that we don’t know where our drinking water supply comes from.  It is something we really don’t think about, we turn on our tap we drink it we hardly think of where it comes from, Lake Erie and Lake Huron.  I think we do take this for granted and since we are getting our drinking water from another source people don’t really think about the effects of polluting our own local water the Thames River.   London residents should be made aware of their own water wastes and how they can impact the local river which will in turn empty into the drinking water supply.  I think that Londoners should be made aware of the impacts that their daily products have on our water, if possible such.  We are limited to what we throw out what if we were limited to what water we waste or what chemicals we dump.  If people don’t know then they are less likely to care.   The pollution in water does not dilute, it spreads and traces can be found at all levels of the food chain.  This can effect human health through consumption of fish and water.  

As far as household products go how do we know what will be less harmful to the water? Avoid products with hazardous symbols.   Buy only environmentally friendly products.  Look for the eco logo.  Don’t dump things down the drain that could cause problems to the sewage system such as dental floss, hair, disposable diapers and plastic tampon holders in the toilet – these items create many problems at the sewage treatment plant.  Save food scraps and compost them instead of dumping them down the drain.  Choose latex (water-based) paint instead of oil-based and use it up instead of storing or dumping it. Choose safe pest controls to eliminate pesticides in our water, DON'T pour oils, paint compounds, solvents and other products into storm sewers, onto the street, or into your driveway.  Remember water quality when camping with safe swage and boating by keeping up with maintenance to reduce risks of leaks.  Stay informed.  It’s easy. That is what I do anyways read what products are good and safe and how I can help to ensure I am doing my own parts.  London needs more awareness in the newspapers, radio, news, pamphlets, ads. 

Flouride is becoming an issue and Londoners are becoming aware, this is a problem that we can unfortunately not control in our own daily water use and consumption but atleast with household items we can control the impacts on our water supply.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=2C3144F5-1

Fish Habitat it's Everyone's Business

Fish Habitat it’s Everyone’s Business

What is fish habitat and why does it matter?  Fish Habitat is any place that fish go that provides fish with food, shelter, space to reproduce and spawn as well as migration routes.   What does this mean to water quality? Everything, good fish habitat proves that the water provides healthy fish populations and this is a good indicator of water quality.  Also under the fisheries act fish, shellfish and even marine mammals are considered “fish”. 

Why is fish habitat protected?  In Canada, Fish Habitat is protected under the Fisheries Act, which is federal legislation enforced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).  The Act states that anyone or organization that wishes to work near water must ensure that they do not cause any Harmful Alteration Disruption or Destruction (HADD) to fish habitat.   Working near water includes private landowners putting in a deck, new factories, city bridges, and oh yes even mines, pipelines and oil sands.  

So what’s the problem?  You may have guessed it.  What is Harper’s favourite resource oil, therefore it is more important than our other resources fisheries, and even freshwater.  Would you be surprised to know that the next legislation that Harper plans to gut is the Fisheries Act?  Why to speed up the Enbridge Pipelines process. How would this achieve this you ask?  Well under the fish habitat guidelines every project must submit proposals how they will avoid any HADD to fish habitat and if they cannot they have to explain what they will do to rebuild it.   Before a project is allowed to start an environmental assessment must be preformed to ensure that there will be no harm to the fish habitat.  

By removing this law the government will eliminate the need for these assessments and will allow projects and developments to occur in these areas.  Therefore those pesky environmental professionals wont be getting in the way of the pipeline Harper is so insistent on.  Not only will this have serious harmful effects on the fish habitat at the site, it will effect all the fish populations in these rivers and other habitat.  These fish are food to other wildlife including grizzly bears, walruses, otters and whales.  Fish habitat is not only important to coastal communities most of the communities along the pipeline route are in BC’s interior and will suffer enormously if the fish habitat laws are removed.   Other provinces will suffer as well, our worst fear arctic gas exploration may be possible.  

First, to challenge the Fisheries Act one would need to prove that the activity in question was having an “adverse effect” which would be like saying we can’t prove conclusively that smoking causes cancer or that eating cake leads to weight gain.  Just because we cant prove it does not mean people wont get cancer form smoking, just like destroying fish habitat will kill the fish.   Second, a person would need to prove that the fish population was of “economic, cultural or ecological value” but values are based on social and cultural perspectives, which vary widely, and are infinitely difficult to nail down.

 Former DFO Scientist Otto worked for the federal government for 32 years, says “Mr. Harper and his ministers plan to remove a decades-old requirement in the Act to protect all fish habitats. Instead, the protections would apply only to fish that are of “economic, cultural or ecological value.”  This really baffles the 600 scientists that work for DFO they argue that “All species are of ecological value, a fact recognized by the current Act,” they write, “For example, some of our most economically and culturally valued fish species feed upon minnows and so-called ‘rough fish’ species, which allow them to survive and grow.”

We need to protect all of our fish species, as they are all important to the aquatic ecosystem and the food chain.  In order to protect the fish we must protect their habitat and keep the Fisheries Act the way it is.  Fish are the glue that holds our country together.  Fish support our economy, shape our cultural and are passed down to our children. 

The current Fisheries Act allows us to understand that fish need habitat to survive, and harming their habitat will inevitably cause harm to the fish.   This act has been around since the 1860s and has been serving well since, in other words “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. DFO used to pass out on pencils saying “No Habitat – No Fish”.  

Another message from DFO, I have a fish that says Fish Habitat, it’s everyone’s business.  This is so true and we need to stand up for it.  Sign the petition now:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/124/389/037/keep-protection-of-habitat-in-the-canada-fisheries-act/?cid=FB_TAF

Here are my links

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/dont-gut-fisheries-act-scientists-urge-harper/article2377774/

http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2012-03-23/article-2937465/Opposition-grows-to-possible-Fisheries-Act-changes/1

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/fish-habitat-why-rock-the-boat/article2375800/

http://blog.wwf.ca/blog/2012/03/15/hadd-enough-keep-habitat-protection-in-the-federal-fisheries-act/

Littering is Lame

I haven't blogged lately.  Not really sure what I have been busy doing. I hurt my elbow 2 weeks ago but other than that I guess I am just lazy. This weeks roundtable question was on littering.

This week's question focuses on the issue of litterbugs and what we can do about them. Traditional approaches to managing litter such as clean-up projects act as a temporary solution to remove the litter and do little to prevent its recurrence. The annual London Clean & Green campaign is a perfect example of a program that works for a couple of weeks, then attention to litter apparently peters out over the rest of the year.

 Probably because of our early spring this year, the unsightliness of litter seems to be everywhere. It is especially visible around bus stops, major roadways, and even in neighbourhoods and parks. Plastic bags, paper cups and wraps, small and large, are quite literally in the air. Litter, of course, is a very visible example of the "tragedy of the commons". If it's public property; just toss it, somebody else will pick it up -- or not. Instead of shoving that pop can or plastic bottle in your purse, bag or jacket and putting it in the blue box when you get home, somebody will pick it up -- or not. Littering is a nasty habit for people acting out social disaffection, self-centred behaviour, or simply not caring. Managing litter in London consumes financial and human resources that would be better directed to more productive activities.

Does litter bother you, or are you resigned to it? What can we do, if anything? Run education campaigns, call out by-law enforcement, post photos online, seek cooperative action from community groups, businesses and business associations, or nothing at all? What's the answer? 

Litter really does bother me and it bothers me that so many people are resigned to it or chose to ignore it.  If I buy a chocolate bar or drink or whatever if I cannot find a garbage can I keep the wrapper until I get home or find one.   Now I don’t go out of my way to pick up garbage but I really wish I did this.   There are garbage cans downtown or around the city, usually near bus stops, so really there is no excuse for littering.   I live in Summerside and when I do see garbage around my street or at the park I do try to pick it up and throw it out.  I assume it is from kids. 

 I think that action should be taken in the form of education from posters or pamphlets, but will these just become garbage themselves.   Perhaps if people actually understand the effects or impacts of garbage they will stop and even help clean it up.  Littering on the street could be carried to the sewers via rain and wind and end up in our Thames River, which people already believe is polluted but is actually improving and they should care about polluting it not only because of the chemicals it could release but fish or wildlife could choke on it, or it could wreck habitats of fish or turtles or other creatures. 

If people are caught littering by law enforcement why not enforce a ticket and a small fine, maybe then it would actually be taken seriously.   Yeah there are harsher crimes but littering is a real issue too, it would be hard to track but maybe it could work.   I have had friends post photos and status’ regarding littering to their facebook pages, one even claimed she cleaned up garbage at the bus stop but the can was full so they tried to bring it on the bus to throw out and the driver yelled at her and told her to take it off the bus. 

Maybe we need proper city maintenance of the garbage cans on city property, as well as street clean ups, but how much of this could be controlled and how often.  Perhaps community or environmental groups could get involved, organize clean ups regularly and for these groups to also encourage people to stop littering.  Just some food for thought!  There is no excuse for littering, its bad for the environment, the community and our own health.  Its not only not pretty its rude.  Would you like it if someone littered on your lawn, no so why are you doing it?

Round Table Febraury Questions

Here is this month's round table questions

Over last 90 years, the City has promoted two kinds of water conservation plans: 1) forced conservation, like metered water (since 1920),storm drainage and sanitary sewer charges  (since 1993), and alternate day water restrictions (since 1988) during the summer, and 2) natural conservation, when residents are encouraged to purchase low flow shower heads, low flush toilets, tankless water heaters, rain barrels, etc. In the future, the City may also consider a third conservation alternative: providing rebates and subsidies to promote water conservation devices such as those listed under natural conservation or modified rates for certain water users (e.g., low income). Conservation has been even more successful than City officials originally contemplated, particularly since the mandatory "environmental charge" was introduced in 1993 - later becoming the storm and sanitary charge. Since 2001, average annual household water use has dropped by 27% in response to the rising rates. Engineering officials at the City are now concerned about low total revenues coming from the sewer and water rates charges.  How should the City of London deal with water conservation? Is water conservation worth it since ratepayer conservation has not led to reduced consumer water bills, in general. Indeed, annual increases to water and sewer rates between 7% and 9% have been typical in the last few years. What do we do about the dilemma of rising water and sewer rates in the face of sustained consumer conservation?   Each year there are a number of one day, environmental events. Earth Hour, for example, is a standalone event and focuses on a single hour in early spring. In the case of Earth Day, three weeks later, the City promotes a series of community events as part of London Clean & Green.  Which of the following one day, environmental events do you look forward to, if you do? What do you like or dislike about them? Is the environment properly promoted at these events, or should the City ignore these events? Are Londoners properly motivated to do something about the environment by recognizing and promoting these one day events, or do you think most people overlook these dates?   March 15, Bottled Water Free Day March 22, World Water Day March 31, Earth Hour May (any one day), IMatterMarch June 5, World Environment Day June 6, Clean Air Day (Canada) August 14, Blackout Day (Ontario) September 12, International Plastic Bag Free Day September 22, World Car Free Day First Wednesday in October, International Walk to School Day

Answers

1.     Water conservation is a very important issue, and is recently been getting a lot more attention with the revival of the Thames Rivrer.  Although water conservation is not directly linked to reduced consumer water bills.  The sewer and water rates are increasing.   Water rates are connected to water consumption and use, where as storm water sewage rates are connected to the snow melt and rain drainage from the streets.  So why should citizens have to pay for that?  This water is returned back to the river and the charges help to fund the storm sewer pipe system, all other municipal drainage systems, facilities for storm water management systems, erosion control programs related to the drainage and river systems in the City, upkeep and repairs to the Springbank Dam.  If a person has a sewer connected to their property, they must pay the sewer charge, now citizens without a drain have to pay unless in a rural home.  

So how do we deal with this dilemma, the prices are raising but how do we keep citizens interested.  Why not tell the citizens how their contribution is improving drainage efforts with pamphlets, thank them for their contributions.  How about showing them how they are helping to improve water quality in the Thames which is important to the health of the watershed, fish and ecosystem of the Forest City.   Explain that the Thames water health even though we don’t get our drinking water from it is still connected to our drinking water and it is important to ensure good storm drainage to keep it healthy.  Public education and outreach is important if people understand what they are paying for and what it contributes to they will be less likely to complain about the charges and be happy that they are making the difference by small charges that they are already paying. 

2.     Environmental Events in London, the truth is I had no idea there were so many.  I would like to get involved, I just read that there is a Thames River Clean up on Earth Day by the Friends of the Thames and I would like to be a part of it this year.  I usually do the Earth Hour with my family will do an hour of candle light play a board game, the sad thing is we should do it more often.   

I think that London should promote these events more to try to get Londoners involved, using local news papers (London Free Press, London Metro, London Community News), posters, flyers, social media are all great tools that should be used to get these events more aware.   I just found two environmental groups on facebook that I saw mentioned in today’s paper Thames Region Ecological Association and Friends of the Thames.  But just previously I was complaining that I didn’t think London had any water awareness groups turns out I didn’t know where to look.  How can we make these groups and events more accessible to the public?   Perhaps a directory and schedule of events. 

Burnt Church Native Rights or Fishing Rights?

As a Canadian citizen we have rights that are given to us by the federal government.  But what happens when these rights are threatened by the very government, which granted us these rights for merely being citizens?  Now I know that I am proud to be Canadian, but if I were to trace back my heritage somewhere along the line my ancestors were immigrants.  It is those immigrants who were welcomed to this country by the First Nations.  They exchanged rights in the form of treaties to use the resources on the land and waters including hunting and fishing.  These treaties were signed by agreements of peace and friendship over 250 years ago.  The First Nations of Burnt Church were merely exercising their right to fish and had their rights revoked by the federal government. 

The Dorsey Model of Conflict will be used to determine the conflicts surrounding the Mi'kmaq First Nations from the Burnt Church reserve and their fight for the rights to fish freely.  There are four causes of conflict that must be addressed. 

1.     Differences in knowledge and understanding. 

There was a difference in knowledge and understanding of the treaty rights between the First Nations and Non Natives as well as between the First Nations and the Federal Government.  The Non Natives do not know what the treaties mean and they believe all Canadians should have the same rights.  The First Nations know that they have a right to fish and that this right was in the original treaty in 1752 and has since been reconfirmed in subsequent documents thereafter.  The government does know the rights stated in the treaty but they believe these should be put into a modern context.  The government needs to take on a more understanding role.

2.     Differences in Values

The First Nations have their own set of values they live off the land and waters and use the resources to provide for their family.   They have been fishing, hunting and gathering sustainably for 11,000  years in efforts to conserve the stocks for future generations.   The First Nations of Burnt Church have hunted and fished for years and it is these traditions that are passed on to their children.   The Non Natives believe that they have fished for years and that commercial fishing is a livelihood that their parents and grandparents have passed on to them.   For the Mi'kmaq people fishing isn’t a livelihood it is a way of life.  It is a necessity to provide food and income for their families. 

The federal government was at odds with the First Nations because it is their responsibility to enforce government policies.  If someone fishes out of season or out of bounds or without a license it is considered a federal offense, and therefore legal action must be taken.  The government was only doing what they thought was the law, and that all Canadians should be subject to the same laws. 

3.     Differences in the distribution of benefits and costs.

The Mi'kmaq did not have licenses to fish, but they did have permits that were granted in the 1752 treaty.   Some Natives decided to give this up, or to stop fishing after the cod collapse in order to help conserve the fish stocks.  The Federal Government actually bought back the First Nations permits and licenses.  The First Nations did not get their permits back and were forced to get licenses if they wanted to continue to fish.  These licenses cost $ 50,000 before the Marshall incident and the prices went up there after.

The First Nations are the only group in Canada with a recognized inherent right to fish, but these rights do not always guarantee access.  The majority of the Mi’kmaq are on social assistance and cannot afford such high costs.  

The Non-Native commercial fishermen were making more income from fishing and could afford licenses.   However after the cod collapse, they were forced to chose other species to focus on, which included lobster and were granted the majority of the licenses to a fishery previously dominated by the First Nations.   The Non Native Fishermen had substantially more vessels and more traps.  The First Nations were only allowed to have 4 traps per individual.  Communal licenses were awarded to the Mi’kamaq. 

When the government pressed charges on the First Nations, they could not afford the legal costs, the government then provided them the funding for their legal costs.  This right was not continued in the next fishing season.

4.     Differences due to personalities and circumstances of interested parties

The First Nations, Non Natives, DFO and RCMP are all at odds with each other, or at war as the movies states.   The First Nations wanted to exercise their legal right to fish freely.   The Non Natives did not really believe that this was about their rights but to compete for fishing with them.   This caused hatred, racism and even protests against the First Nations in a community which was formerly very friendly with one another.  The Mi’kmaq and the commercial fishermen used to fish the waters together as brothers and were very understanding to one another they were united as Fishermen.  After the Burnt Church crisis they were very negative towards the Mi’Kmaq even aggressive bringing guns on to the waters. 

The DFO and RCMP were now monitoring the fishery very closely, but they were not doing so fairly.  They watched as the Non Natives and Natives were at war on the waters.  The Peace Rangers of Burnt Church were called to intervene between the two groups.   When they did, the RCMPs went after the Peace Rangers and attacked the natives, tipped boats, seized traps and used physical violence.  Then charged them with assault instead of fishing charges.   This was not right, the government and RCMPs were abusing their positions of power. 

Conclusion

To be honest this is the first time I have really analyzed this situation and I am really ashamed at the Federal Government of Canada.   I cannot believe that it not only allowed this but actually were the cause of the Burnt Church Crisis.   In the movie it was said that the First Nations need to take action and initiative in order to have their say in their fisheries. 

What Burnt Church needs is Community-management for the fishery this already exists in the in-shore ground fishery in parts of southwestern Nova Scotia. DFO allocates quotas to designated areas, but locally created fishing organizations work together to guide and coordinate the fisheries management for natives and non natives alike (1).  The Fishermen of Southwest Nova Scotia took a different approach, instead of violence native and non-native fishing leaders in sat down face-to-face to deal with the issues facing the groundfish fishery, as well as their differences (1).  After coming together both the Natives and the Non Natives of Southwest Nova Scotia Fishery realized they both wanted the same thing “ecologically sound, community management of the fisheries, based on democratic self-governance  or in the case of First Nations, self-government” (1).   The community of Burnt Church needs to take this sort of initiative in order to keep the peace, and protect the resources.  

1. 

Stiegman, Martha. United we Fish The fight against the privatization of the fisheries is creating new alliances between native and non-native fishing communities in southwest Nova Scotia. 2003. Adapted from an article that originally appeared in Alternatives Journal: Canadian Environmental Ideas and Action, 29:4 (2003). http://www.alternativesjournal.ca

http://www.forumonpublicdomain.ca/united-we-fish.

Trying to get to the bottom of the Candain Seal Hunt

So I am starting to see a lot of posts regarding the seal hunt in the last few days, and I am getting angry.  Now instead of focusing on all the controversy, lets try to get to the bottom of the hunt, the history, and a few common misconceptions.  I wrote this post about a month or so ago for a friend's website haven't seen it up yet, so I thought now is as good a time as any to inform my friends and followers what the seal hunt is all about.  I am still trying to understand why it is still occurring in Canada.

As March approaches, Canada will soon be faced with an “age old, yearly tradition”, the Seal Hunt.  The hunt occurs from November to May, with the bulk of it occurring in March.  This topic is very controversial and sensitive to Canadians. With 69 % of Canadians opposed to the hunt, why does the government continue to allow and even promote it? A friend of mine brought up the point it depends whether you are from the east coast or not.  We need to know the history, and the facts, and try to get to the bottom of this once and for all. 

History

Seal hunting was an Inuit tradition dating back almost 3000 years ago.  In the early 1700s, European Settlers from the North Shore of the St. Lawrence and the northeast coast of Newfoundland began hunting seals commercially.  By the late 1700s, offshore hunting began.  The early commercial hunters were hunting for seal oil, it was used for lamps, cooking oil, processing of leather and soap.  I am going to go out on a limb here and say seal oil is outdated so why is this continuing? Seal Pelts, have been used traditionally for Inuit clothing, they are still popular in Norway, Greenland, Russia and China.  Seal meat is also part of traditional Inuit diet, and a delicacy in the above countries. 

Did you know the Newfoundland seal hunt almost disappeared during the Second World War, due to the seal boats being used over seas, the decline continued into the 1950’s.  After Newfoundland became a province in 1949, sealing became less necessary for economic survival. So why didn’t it die out?  I cannot find a clear answer on that.  My guess seal fur became fashionable, and so the hunt “bounced back” (I guess because the timelines don’t provide any reasoning.) In the 1960s the seal hunt became public, resulting in anti-sealing activism. In the 1980s, EU bans seal products and the seal market collapses, in response Canada bans hunting of blue back and white coat seals.

 In the 1990s, the collapse of the Cod Fishery, left many fisherman at an economic loss and so they in turn joined the hunt.   The hunt was then subsidized in an effort to provide the fishermen with income to make up for their loss of cod fishery. Instead of the hunt dying down the government invested millions promoting the sealing effort.  DFO claims that they have not subsidized the hunt since 2001 and that the hunt is economically viable.  So the hunt has continued since making about 16 million a year, killing 200,00--300,000 seals.

What about the First Nations?

We all know that the Inuit eat seals, and use seal pelts for clothing.  But are they involved in the “Traditional Commercial Hunt”? The truth is the First Nations kill only about 10,000 seals a year, less than 1 % of the seals killed. The Inuit use all the parts of the seals for food and fur for their own traditional purposes.  This is allowed and most Canadian groups are not actually concerned with the natives hunting.  I agree and believe that the First Nations should be allowed to hunt if anyone is.  The majority of hunters are actually white commercial fishermen from the east coast, who hunt to supplement their income when fishing is down. 

Activism

There are many groups that are anti-sealing and anti-seal hunt.  This should be great news right?  With activism comes “animal rights groups” that are anti killing animals, they care more about the fact that the seals are cute and should not be slaughtered, rather than the actual consequences.  I agree, but cuteness is unfortunately not a big enough factor, and these groups don’t have all the facts.  A lot of them think that it is Canada’s indigenous people involved in the hunt, and that the government is funding the hunt. 

Seal Product Bans

Europe has banned fur and fur products.   Other countries have started doing so as well.  Even China, has started banning seal meat from Canada.  However, the US wants to take it a step further and ban all Canadian Fish products. I do not agree with this, this would take away from fishermen’s incomes, who are not hunting.  Also most exported fish are from the west coast, since the east coast stocks have been in jeopardy since the collapse.   This is an unfair way to stop the hunt. But what is unfair that Canada allows it.

Seals vs Cod Science

Seals are predators in the oceanic food web, and are often blamed for the seal cod collapse.  The truth is both harp and grey seals actually do eat cod (about 3 % of their diet) but they also eat predator fish of cod.  Seals also face predation themselves from polar bears, killer whales, sharks, and humans (obviously).  There is no scientific proof that the seals are responsible for the cod collapse, and to allow the hunt or cull in response to this is a backwards attempt to solve the problem. 

The truth is overfishing, and a lack of listening to scientists is what caused the cod collapse, not seals.  The government feels responsible but instead of admitting their mistake, they promoted the hunt as way to overcome the economic loss from fishing, and they continue to allow it by producing one-sided reports.  Scientists agree that there are many uncertainties in the seal-cod dynamics but that seals and cod exist in a complex ecosystem, where there are no simple solutions to the recovery of cod stocks.

Seals play an integral role in northwest Atlantic ecosystems by helping all fish populations to thrive. Harp seals are opportunistic feeders, and consume only small amounts of many different species.  In a 2011 report by DFO, Minister Ashfield tries to justify a cull of grey seals, but the report clearly states that a cull could easily wipe out the remaining cod stocks. Since Grey seals consume many predators of cod, cod stocks are recovering in the area with the highest number of grey seals.

Conclusions

The Seal Hunt is an outdated process that needs to stop, Canadians are against it, so is the rest of the world, so why is the Canadian government continuing to support it. Humane Society International (HSI) Canada says: “A grey seal cull will serve nothing more than the ambitions of political opportunists playing to certain sectors of the fishing industry”.   The problem with the Seal Hunt has become so political, where Canadian politicians fear they will lose votes if they cut it, regardless of how they look to the rest of the world. 

Links

http://www.hsi.org/world/canada/news/releases/2011/11/ashfield_promotes_grey_seal_cull_111011.html - %5B14%5D

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/misc/seal_briefing_e.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html

http://www.hsicanada.ca/wildlife/seals/seal_myths_and_facts.html

http://www.hsi.org/world/canada/news/releases/2011/11/ashfield_promotes_grey_seal_cull_111011.html

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/jf00/sealtimeline.asp#five

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-phoque/reports-rapports/facts-faits/facts-faits_tl-eng.htm

http://www.speakupforblue.com/ocean-solutions/is-the-canadian-seal-hunt-worth-it

http://www.harpseals.org/about_the_hunt/faqs.php

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2009/07/wwww_2.html

http://www.sealsandsealing.ca/view.php?id=33&type=1

http://www.thesealfishery.com/index.php

http://antisealingcoalition.ca/blog/tag/subsidies/