Oh, the irony! As regular blog readers may recall, in a decision that ignored science-based advice from top experts, as well as government biologists, the government of Ontario declared the double-crested cormorant a “gamebird,” even though cormorants are virtually inedible. Long established tradition and law has decreed that legal hunting must be based on conservation principles and usage. Ethical hunters eat what they kill, and hunt within limits established to prevent endangering the species. That all got thrown out the window, and only under intense pressure did the government relent a small amount by reducing the season so it would not include the breeding season.
While cormorants are among a large number of birds and other wildlife species that eat fish, the evidence that, in balance, they don’t seriously deplete numbers of the fish species coveted by both commercial and recreational anglers is overwhelmingly demonstrated by numerous studies and research conducted for more than a century.
Cue second concern: that cormorant excrement is so rich in nutriments that if concentrated, specifically on the ground under nesting colonies, it may kill off vegetation, including trees. Never mind that the number of trees lost to cormorants in Ontario any given year would be miniscule, barely counted in the dozens, if that. Without being able to say what number would be the “right” number of cormorants to kill, and with no means of determining how many were killed anyway, a provision was made that allowed hunters to kill, and waste, the birds. It put the lie to the myth that hunters “harvested” game for human consumption under science-based wildlife management principles.
The irony I mention derives from Bill 229, a recent omnibus provincial Act proposed by the same Ontario government that calls cormorants “gamebirds,” bizarrely called the Protect, Support, and Recover from COVID-19 Act. It contains a provision that would gut the ability of various regions and regional Conservation Authorities to protect the environment. The language is somewhat ambiguous, but in the words of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), risk lies in “…the creation of a new process to bypass conservation authorities’ science-based decision making and force us to issue permits where Minister’s Zoning Orders have been issued by the Province in support of development. Conservation authorities use science to fulfill our mandate of protecting our communities and conserving natural resources.”
That may sound tediously dull, but it means that the provincial government is giving itself dictatorial powers to benefit “developers” without regard to damage done to the environment. And, one element of the irony is that COVID-19 is given as the excuse – to put immediate benefit of the “developers,” the creators of urban sprawl, ahead of the long-term benefit of a healthy environment for all of us, for generations to come. Surely, if this pandemic has taught us anything, it has taught us the importance of science-based policy and action.
While Schedule 6 is the most egregious part of the bill, Schedules 8 and 40 are also concerning. The Act repeals the Crown Forest Sustainability Act of 1994, which addresses forest management that overlaps regulations under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) and related matters, leaving tree cutters exempt from certain provisions of the ESA in Crown forests
I have a special concern overall because of a childhood trauma. I was eleven in 1954 when Hurricane Hazel, a category four hurricane that had dropped to tropical storm status, hit Toronto. It had already killed hundreds and caused immense property damage, but it stalled when reaching Toronto, leading to massive flooding and loss of life and property. Eighty one people died and most loss of life was due to placement of homes and infrastructure in ravines and on floodplains. It was a very early lesson for me in the power of nature, and the risk we take when we act without considering consequences. The Conservation Authorities Act had been passed eight years earlier, and allowed municipalities within a given watershed the ability to create a Conservation Authority to manage, in conjunction with other agencies, the land to the benefit of society by taking into account the expertise of all stakeholders and making science-based zoning decisions. While risk avoidance is their primary mandate, they have served, often admirably, to protect locally-determined environmental interests.
Push-back to Schedule 6, the most dangerous part of Bill 299, has been enormous, but as I write, to no avail. David Crombie, chair of the Greenbelt Council, and six other Council members have resigned in protest. Crombie is a former Member of Parliament for the same party, the Conservatives, now governing Ontario, and former Mayor of Toronto. The Greenbelt Council seeks to protect an area north of Canada’s most populated region, the Greater Toronto Area, that provides the origins of the watershed that services millions of people, homes, and businesses. Protection from what? Development in the absence of the very kind of environmental review process the Ontario government now seeks to sideline. The lessons of not just Hurricane Hazel, but also COVID-19, are being ignored.
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Barry
