My rant for the day

I am studying for my online class: Environment and Resources aka Canada's Mistakes.   Here is my summary of what I learned:
A resource that has been here for 1000s of years that the natives have used sustainably. We can make money from this, cool, lets harvest it to the point of no return. Oh guess its not renewable after all, my bad oh well we can still make money off it so lets keep doing it. Sorry Natives, too bad for you, I know you had it first but we wrecked it so we get to keep harvesting and you can only use it for "native" purposes.
Why is this frustrating? Because the natives lose their land, jobs, livelihood, and their resources.   The resources are sold by the commercial industries and exported to other countries, while the natives don't have enough for their own supplies, or to support their families economically.   First Nations need to be put as a top priority when it comes to resources.  Whether its fishing, mining, logging, agriculture, energy, all of it requires a basic resource that the natives used to life off the land.   We really need to look to First Nations for the impacts that we have made or will make when harvesting a resource.  We also need to look to them for their Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) this would really help improve research for resource knowledge and help to fill in gaps that we are missing.   Resource harvesting has negative impacts on the environment, the land, and First Nations. 
I really think that First Nations should be involved in all aspects of Natural Resources, we need to help them and they can help us understand the relationships of the land, its resources and it's people.  It is their country as much as ours we need to work together to protect it.  

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