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/