CANNINGS & COWS

 

                                                 CANNINGS  & COWS

Area representative M.P. Dick Cannings recently authored a piece in local papers in support of the National Park proposed for the Okanagan in which he advocated the continuance of cattle grazing on public land.

As supporters of the National Park idea, we have published articles of support with our support contingent on removal of the cow.

See:

http://www.boundaryalliance.org/nationalpark.pdf

http://www.boundaryalliance.org/scientists_parkdeclaration.pdf

We recently wrote to M.P. Cannings to take issue with his support for cattle grazing, the precedent that would be created that could affect other National Parks, and the background reasons behind his cattle grazing support.

In the absence of any acknowledgement or reply by M.P. Cannings, we are now publishing an Open Letter to M.P. Cannings.
          See full story here

The following is an extract from our “Open Letter to M.P. Cannings.”

 

“Your support for continued cattle grazing, and the precedent that would be established in a National Park is an unfortunate proposal that fails to promote willing seller, willing buyer discussions that would result in removal of the cow. More significant is that your support for continued cattle grazing ignores the role of cattle as “degradation agents” whose presence has greatly damaged grasslands and habitat, and continues to do so.

 

We might have expected, given your environmental interests, you would be well aware of the economic and environmental absurdity of cattle grazing on public land.

 

We were aware however of a cautionary note when we saw/heard your reported comment, prior to your election, that cattle grazing in the Okanagan benefitted some birds. In enquiring (to people better acquainted with your work) as to whether this might mean that you would support continued cattle grazing in a Park, respondents thought good sense would prevail, not cows.

 

It seems clear that desired habitat for some nesting bird is of more concern to you than the wide-ranging damage occurring, thanks to cattle grazing.

 

Some comment on the bird in question may be useful.

 

To quote from your own book and your other comments, “Lark Sparrow, (nesting is)associated with bare earth between grass clumps and shrubs in grasslands, so may actually benefit from cattle grazing”.

 

Interestingly, the Audubon Society, perhaps better aware of cattle damage, describes the Lark Sparrow as “fairly common and widespread in the West....nesting in open country, bare ground, overgrazed pastures”

 

 

 

We provided the following partial list of cattle related problems and damage to M. P. Cannings.

 

A partial list of problems associated with cattle grazing:

 

 

• grassland and riparian degradation
• absurd water consumption raising low value crops
• water contamination
• cattle contribution to weed spread, cheat grass and other invasives.
• public fencing costs
• ecological-restoration costs (millions in public funds spent to repair damage, without removing the root cause, cattle)
• lost opportunity costs
• forest regrowth damage
• conflicts with wildlife, habitat, food
• growing awareness of cattle contribution to global warming.

 

 

 

For the complete story see the full article:           here

SCIENTISTS DECLARE SUPPORT for OKANAGAN NATIONAL PARK

The following is a guest article, Declaration of Support…….produced and signed by 26 scientists. The article is a response to the B.C. Gov’ts recent request for comments for reactivated proposals for a South Okanagan Park.

Boundary Alliance made its own separate submission online and in the format requested by Gov’t. That online process made no provision for identifying whether the submission came from an individual or group/organization. Unlike similar processes, e.g. submission of comments re Water Act changes, comments/submissions are not being published online. This lack of transparency can hide any public awareness of “stacking” of responses by so called stakeholders. 

While we largely support the following Declaration by scientists we do have concerns over a “balanced” approach to cattle grazing in any Park unless that “balanced” approach incorporates an honest assessment of the public and environmental costs of cattle grazing on public land. The absence of any honest “costs” assessment to date has resulted in misleading claims of positive economic values to grazing. See our articles covering this topic at: www.boundaryalliance.org/ba_008.htm

             

Al Grant for Boundary Alliance.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

DECLARATION of SUPPORT for NEGOTIATIONS LEADING to a NEW FRAMEWORK for PROTECTING the SOUTH OKANAGAN LOWER SIMILKAMEEN

We the undersigned, as members of BC's scientific community, join with Parks Canada, the Province of BC, the Okanagan Nation Alliance, and a majority of local residents in supporting enhanced protection for the ecosystems of the South Okanagan and Lower Similkameen. We encourage the government of British Columbia. Parks Canada and the Okanagan Nation Alliance to initiate formal negotiations to finalize boundaries, relationships, and commitments for the creation of a National Park Reserve (NPR) and for the long term protection and management of this remarkable area....

for full text, maps and list of signatures see: www.boundaryalliance.org/scientists_parkdeclaration.pdf

SOUTH OKANAGAN NATIONAL PARK ?

A guest piece this time from John & Mary Theberge,  biologist’s from Oliver B.C.

John & Mary’s recent book, The Ptarmigans Dilemma expands on grasslands issues in North America. We recommend the book and the opinions contained in their letter below that first appeared in the Oliver Chronicle September 11 2015. That book and Wolf Country: Eleven Years Tracking the Algonquin Wolves are available at amazon.ca

 

National Park – Reasons for Concern - The Position of 2 of the Proposal’s Initiators

                                                        John and Mary Theberge

                                                                                      Oliver.

    We are 2 of 4 biologists who initiated the South Okanagan national park proposal back in 2002.  

During the public feasibility study, we put in years of effort to inform the public about its high priority, ecological rationale, including staging a 2-day public science forum to explain the meaning and values of a national park in this area.    

   But a problem arose.  The BC government pushed Parks Canada into the untenable position of abandoning its foremost principle of maintaining ecological integrity.  With cattle grazing, the lands before and after national park establishment would look and feel very little different.

   National parks are meant to preserve and protect nature in as unimpeded a way as possible, to be places where we stand back, for ethical and moral reasons, and let nature have its way. 

pic from wildernesscommittee.org/gwen barlee

   Livestock grazing, along with commercial logging and mining are prohibited, by Act, Policy and Regulations.  While any legal or procedural changes to accommodate livestock grazing in a South Okanagan national park undoubtedly would be restricted to this particular park, a dangerous precedent would be set.  History has shown that once you entrench rights in any park, national or provincial, the legal prospects of removing them are in doubt. 

We have already made far more concessions to outside commercial interests than has the U.S. National Park system. 

   For decades we have championed national parks.  As a university teacher, John has helped train many of the Agency’s senior employees in ecological park management, and chaired a national task force for the federal Minister of the Environment on finding ways to complete the national park system. The minister wanted to be able to make national parks without being held to ransom by the provinces, as had happened so often before.  Here, it has happened again. 

   As ecologists, we recognize that livestock grazing, even managed as well as possible, is invariably extremely destructive in the dry southern interior.  These lands never supported bison, which are roughly ecological equivalents to cattle, and so are not adapted to the presence of a 1,200 pound grazing and trampling herbivore.  Delicate soils that depend on cryptobiotic crusts for nitrogen, sensitive riparian habitats, and the ubiquitous presence of seed sources of invasive plants, all make livestock grazing and ecological integrity totally contradictory. 

Parks Canada’s statement in 2011 that they would manage “continued livestock grazing in the park concept area in a manner consistent with ecological objectives and park values” is scientifically absurd.

   Now, however, the game has changed with the province’s recent press release of a proposed jurisdictional split into national park and provincial park/conservancy lands, and its call for public comment by Oct. 12.   Taking a big chunk out of the national park proposal, BC would likely continue to despoil the lands it manages, but it may withdraw the offending caveat on provincial crown lands it hands over to Parks Canada.  A real national park, not a bastardized one, could happen.  Similar to Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan, it would accumulate gradually, probably over decades, assembled only as ranchers willingly decide to sell.  But no land included in a national park would remain cattle pasture.  The Act, Policy and Regulations, and the whole ideal of national parks, would stay intact.

   Unhappily, we do not know if that is in the cards.  Far too little information was provided in the province’s press release.  If a real national park without grazing is in the offing, we support it.  If not, we continue our objections and hope that people concerned with protecting and restoring the wild beauty of an intact ecosystem, will object too.

   With the current ambiguity, and especially after the years of unresolved debate over appropriate land uses, this request for public comment is almost insulting.  Ideally, BC together with First Nations, should make clear what land uses they foresee, and extend the period of public comment.  But related to a national park, at a minimum, Parks Canada should exploit the opportunity, right now, to determine if the province has backed away from the livestock grazing ransom, and issue a press release reassuring Canadians that it will not entertain commercial ranching in any lands that may become a national park.

John and Mary Theberge,                                                                                    Oliver B.C.

  This article and other background info on the park proposal can be found at www.boundaryalliance.org/nationalpark.pdf