NEW ZEALAND RIVER WORLD'S FIRST LEGAL ENTITY

2017:
New Zealand passed a bill recognizing the Whanganui River as a legal entity. A world first.

Ruling means the river will be entitled to representation in court proceedings.

The New Zealand Parliament passed the bill making it the first natural resource to be given a legal personality.

I know the initial inclination of some people will say it's pretty strange to give a natural resource a legal personality, " said New Zealand's Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson. "But it is no stranger than family trusts, or companies or incorporated societies."


 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39282918

With extracts from BBC and Daily Mail
Our comment:
Good to think about the possibility of legal status for rivers here. Locally the Kettle River was given Heritage Status years ago, but Heritage Status and the recent Kettle River Watershed Management Plan, have failed to protect the Kettle River system from past, present and future threats.


A few days later:
An Indian Court, acknowledging the New Zealand action, has given similar protection to the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers, "meaning that if anyone harms or pollutes either river, the law would view it as no different from harming a person."      See more:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/indian-court-gives-2-rivers-same-rights-as-a-human-1.3333556

LOST LAKE REVISITED

At the end of April 2014 a group of public minded citizens replaced a section of fence around Lost Lake in the Gilpin Grasslands to better protect the area from off-road vehicles and range cow damage. The new fence was constructed as fully wildlife friendly fencing.

The Story on the new fencing was originally reported Nov 2014  at:    www.boundaryalliance.org/lostlake.pdf     

In spring 2015 Range Branch and Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resources (MFLNRO) and Ministry of Environment, installed signage and a seating bench at Lost Lake, some six years after their original fence construction.   The major message on that signage appears to have been prompted by the concerns raised in our original Nov 2014 article: see section on “Waterer Not Activated.”      
Incredibly the major message on the Governments new signage in 2015:  

1. tried to justify the original placement of the fence as bounding existing riparian vegetation.
2. introduced a long winded and misleading rationale for why there was no water in the waterer.

  Regarding (1) it became apparent over time that the older fence failed to protect existing riparian  vegetation which showed up outside that fence and also failed to provide any worthwhile setback from such vegetation. The original fence placement also did not prevent a throughway for off-road vehicles.  The new wildlife friendly fence installed by public minded citizens in 2014 fixed those problems.

 Regarding (2) the claim on the new signage blaming the City of Grand Forks for not providing water for the waterer, is contrary to what was claimed by MFLNRO in extended conversations with the writer  June 20 2014. See more detail on those discussions in our Nov 2014 article:

www.boundaryalliance.org/lostlake.pdf

Crucially however, the Government’s claim on the sign, that the City of Grand Forks would not provide water for the waterer, is according to the City of Grand Forks, not true.

 In addition to the misleading (or worse) information provided on the sign, the sign is placed looking down the length of the new fence installed in 2014 by volunteers. Viewers of the sign might expect that this new wildlife friendly fence was the work of Government. On the contrary, Range Branch and MFLNRO have resisted such installations despite public concerns and the advice of the Forest Practices Board. MFLNRO was in fact engaged in “investigating who was responsible” for the “unauthorized” new fence while placing this misleading signage that suggests it is their work.

In addition to the serial misrepresentations of the signage, it was installed together with a bench and sign celebrating off-road vehicle usage in the area. The scars on the land from such activities will be apparent in upcoming articles. We wonder if those supporting or sponsoring the signage including the Trails signage are fully aware of the damage done to public land by range-cattle and off road activities.

 

youtube video 3.14 min

if your devices and download speed allow, available at up to 1080 HD

 

 

Our November 2014 article on installation of the new wildlife friendly fence:

www.boundaryalliance.org/lostlake.pdf

made a number of complaints and suggestions regarding Government oversight of public resources and faulty installation of fences and waterers in the Gilpin Grasslands and elsewhere.

The misleading signage installed by Government in 2015 further demonstrates their lack of competence and inability to honestly deal with the damaging realities of Range use and oversight.

 

Extended pdf  version with additional pictures, background and  transcript of message on signage, available at:

www.boundaryalliance.org

 

Our Fencing Project on Nature Trust Land: Revisited

 

 As told in an earlier article July 2015:     http://www.boundaryalliance.org/naturetrust.pdf      

 A portion of damaged Nature Trust property in the Gilpin Grasslands has been fenced by volunteers to protect a spring and riparian area. This will be the first time since the property was acquired by Nature Trust in 1973, that this piece, approximately 6 acres, will be protected from range cows and off-roaders.

The fence was proposed at meetings of the Committee for the Enhancement of the Gilpin. Work began late 2014 and was completed June 2015.

Approximately 6 acres of Nature Trust land is now protected by wildlife friendly fencing as per recommendations of Montana State Wildlife Friendly Fencing Brochure. See details on www.dryrotjournal.blogspot.ca Lost Lake blog of Nov 2014.

For more on that story see the link above.

Volunteers returned to the newly fenced area Oct 2015 to remove the dysfunctional fence installed a few years earlier by Range Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

That Range Branch fence deserves further comment as it was a non-wildlife friendly fence installed too close to a spring and seasonal flow to provide any worthwhile setback or protection from range cows. The Range Branch fence was constructed in a U shape, open at the North end where it was apparently assumed that dense brush would prevent cattle access. The assumption was wrong, cattle pushed into the supposed enclosure and having done so, exited through the wire, damaging the fence. The fence did not extend into the headwaters area of the spring which remained open to cattle damage. In order to construct that fence, Range Branch or designates felled numerous trees in the area and left them where they fell. That fence and the damage were done on Nature Trust property without permission or notice to Nature Trust.

Other examples of Range Branch’s work can be found in the Gilpin and elsewhere in the Boundary. Poorly planned, poorly executed, non-wildlife friendly fencing and fencing along the edge of riparian zones that are hazardous to wildlife. See more on that in our Nov 2014 article: http://www.boundaryalliance.org/lostlake.pdf

The following YouTube video shows the new fence construction and the take down of the older Range Branch dysfunctional fence.

 

 

 If your device and download speed allow, select up to 1080 high definition video.

 

 

 

It is our hope that this initiative will:

• Allow recovery of the Nature Trust Spring and surrounding area.

• Demonstrate improved natural values in the absence of cattle grazing and off-roading.

• Demonstrate the effectiveness of wildlife friendly fencing in the face of Range Branch’s reluctance to use same.

On the latter point we are less than optimistic. Range Branch has shown no ability or inclination to change their practices for the benefit of anything other than cattle grazing.

This article and video link are also available as a printable pdf at http://www.boundaryalliance.org

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGRI WASTE CONTROL REGULATION: Our comments

AGRI WASTE CONTROL REGS REVIEW:   Our comment….  Sept 2015

While there are multiple sources of waste contamination our submission focuses on an area that receives little attention as per the following:

Submission to Agricultural Waste Control Regulation Review by: Al Grant for Boundary Environmental Alliance Org.  www.boundaryalliance.org   September 14 2015.

 

This writer approaches this process with great skepticism informed by 40 years of farming and 30 years as an active environmentalist (particularly in stream protection) in the Fraser Valley and here in the Boundary area for the last 20 years. Having been a participant in numerous exercises promoted by Government to address myriad environmental concerns, one constant has been Government reluctance to do what is necessary to protect the environment.

Twenty five years ago I wrote a report for the Langley Township Council’s Environment Committee on Water Quality and Preservation of Natural Resources. That report led to an Environmentally Sensitive Areas Study by UBC. Both reports documented farm and other waste problems affecting streams and large aquifers in the Fraser Valley. There was nothing new in this information as the various sources of degradation had been known for years. Despite numerous government and producer initiatives over the years these same problems still persist and nitrate and other potentially harmful toxins have increasingly created dead streams and ever increasingly tainted aquifers.

This AWCR process has been going on for years, frightened it appears, to move with any deliberate speed due to perceived agriculture industry resistance and has indicated that any (presumably weak) changes will be implemented over some extended timeline.

This writer farmed as a (fairly large) hobby farmer for 40 years and in doing so had an inside perspective on industry concerns and industry contributions to environmental problems. For those who perhaps regard “hobby farming” as not real farming, I would point to the B C Cattle industry which is the target of our upcoming criticisms, and point out that the recent government Ranching Task Force pointed out that most ranches in BC have outside work to support their hobby.

Since 2006 Boundary Alliance has documented damage and pollution created by ranching operators in the Boundary area. The primary focus has been on damage to public lands, so called range land made available to ranching operators at an absurd rental. Other examples of damage on private land exist and  links are provided below.

Earlier input into the AWCR process indicates a substantial number of contributors want to preserve the status quo and resist “owning” their contribution to the problem or even acknowledging the problem. One response seemed to encapsulate this mindset by saying “the samples of the Coldstream & Osoyoos Aquifer (given in an AWCR update/review ) are not representative of watercourses and aquifers throughout BC and are therefore not sufficient to demonstrate that broad based regulatory changes are required”.
While the AWCR could have supplied a multitude of other documented problems, it was not the purpose of that report to provide that long list. The problems of Coldstream and Osoyoos aquifer are indeed representative of BC aquifers and streams and in fact there are far more problems than government has so far seen  fit to acknowledge.

The latest AWCR update/review referred to Best Management Practices on Crown Land in Community Watersheds.  In our linked reports we note in detail that MFLNRO has promoted the notion that some higher level of care, (guidelines only and unenforceable) applies to Community Watersheds. The Forest Practices Board and the organization representing logging on private land have both stated that there is no justification or worthwhile rationale for distinguishing between officially designated “Community Watersheds” and the many undesignated watersheds on which many are dependent. The Ministry of Environment needs to require all watersheds get protection and not follow the artificial distinction that Ministry of Forests… has promoted.
The notion that Best Management Practices will effectively address any range use problems is only possible if one ignores all earlier criticisms of range practices by Forest Practices Board, FREP and other observers who have noted that Range Branch and rancher oversight is insufficient to protect public resources. There are compelling reasons, including economics and attitudes that that will remain so.

The AWCR update/review of July 2015, footnoted (8) on Section 10, page 9 that “Management Plans for grazing leases do not consider water quality and that dispersed grazing for low intensity well distributed livestock on grazing leases generally poses a low environmental risk to water quality”.
Our articles and links that follow show this claim to be utterly unjustified.

The following reports document damage and pollution, primarily by range cows, and demonstrate that the levels of contamination are directly related to the presence or absence of range cows. The reports also show that the level of contribution of wildlife to E.coli contamination of streams is not significant, contrary to claims by Range Branch and ranchers.

Links for our reports:

The Problem with Range Cattle, a report sent to Ministry of Forests…, Ministry of Agriculture, Min of Environment April 2010. Ministry of Environment never replied to this report. Min of Forests indicated they were working on changes. We have never seen them. The issue of contaminated water begins on page 10 of that report, however the whole report refers to contributory factors.
www.boundaryalliance.org/rangecattle problem.org

Ecoli Counts in Streams, a 2009 report on several representative streams in the Boundary.
www.boundaryalliance.org/ecolireport2009.pdf

Pathogens and Protection, report which covered cattle range use in our sensitive dryland area and the consequences to water quality, riparian zones.
www.boundaryalliance.org/pathogens_and_protection.pdf

Patterns of E.coli Contamination in Public Land Streams related to the presence of Range Cattle. 2013 This study is ongoing. Results for 2014 and 2015 have not yet been published but so far confirm the earlier results.
www.boundaryalliance.org/e.coli_report2013.pdf

Eholt Creek: A Damaged Stream.
An example of private land damaged including video from 2014
www.boundaryalliance.org/eholtcreek.pdf

 A number of other complaints relating to cattle damage can be found at our blog:
www.dryrotjournal.blogspot.ca
with expanded versions on our website: www.boundaryalliance.org

 

Al Grant for Boundary Alliance Org

A printable PDF version can be found at www.boundaryalliance.org/AWCRcomments.pdf

 

 

Tags:  Agricultural Waste Control Regulation Review, Best Management Practices, Range Cow damage, Stream damage by cows, E.Coli contamination of streams

NATURE TRUST: Spring in Gilpin protected after 42 years

A portion of damaged Nature Trust property in the Gilpin Grasslands has been fenced by volunteers to protect a spring and riparian area. This will be the first time since the property was acquired by Nature Trust in 1973, that this piece will be protected from range cows and off-roaders.

See the Gilpin Grasslands Story:   here

The fence was proposed at meetings of the Committee for the Enhancement of the Gilpin. Work began late 2014 and was completed June 2015.

Approximately 6 acres of Nature Trust land is now protected by wildlife friendly fencing.  As per recommendations of Montana State Wildlife Friendly Fencing Brochure. See link to Montana State fencing guidelines  on dryrotjournal blog:  Lost Lake..... Nov 2014.

newly fenced area outlined. lost lake shows nearby to NW
click on pics to enlarge

   

Barry Brandow and Al Grant of www.boundaryalliance.org   initiated, led and financed materials for the project and substantially completed the work with occasional help from other volunteers and some hours contributed by Nature Trust’s Nick Burdock and helpers. The fence represents a contribution by volunteers of $9,300.00 to $10,700 value (based on contactor prices of $14,000 to $ 16,000 per km.)

 

 

The original fence proposed would have expanded the area of a dis-functional fence installed by Range Branch several years ago. At the request of Nature Trust the area was expanded and ground conditions dictated a further expansion, so that the protected area is now 70% larger than originally proposed. It was originally intended that the fence be in place before arrival of range-cows in May. We were unable to complete the enlarged area on that schedule so some cow damage re-occurred in 2015 before completion of the exclosure.

We expect that exclusion of range cows and off-roaders will result in a significant improvement in the natural attributes of the area in future years.
The range-cattle are supposedly in the area from May 7 to June 15^th each year but the reality is that range-cows have often frequented the area from May through Oct/Nov with significant damage to riparian zones and undue pressure on forage. See dryrotjournal blogs: Lost Lake .... Nov 2014 and Mike Pearson....June 2015 for biologist Mike Pearsons' report on this site and others in the Gilpin.

Prior to this initiative various public funds have been expended by Range Branch in the Gilpin grazing tenure, usually poorly planned, poorly constructed, non wildlife friendly and frequently dysfunctional. Examples abound outside the Gilpin area as well.

It is sad irony to this writer that he volunteered time , equipment and expense to this project when the rational solution to degraded grasslands, contaminated streams and absurd public costs, would be removal of the cow from public lands. See dryrotjournal blog articles:  Cattle Impacts Global & Local Nov 2014 and Cattle as an Invasive Species Dec 2014.

To illustrate the economic and ecological absurdity of cattle grazing on public lands using this small local example, this pasture on the Mehmel grazing tenure collects grazing rents of approx. $400 to $500 P.A. The extended version of this article which will be published at www.boundaryalliancer.org will have further comment on the inadequacies and unenforceable conditions in the Mehmel Range Use Plan.

The “cost” to protect a small portion of Nature Trust’s lot, amounted to “value” of $9,300 to $10,700. Various other public and private costs in the same pasture have likely exceeded this amount while the majority of the Nature Trust and public land portions remain mostly unprotected from range-cattle damage and off-roading.

While it is our hope that this initiative will:

·         Allow recovery of the Nature Trust spring and surrounding area

·         Demonstrate improved natural values in the absence of cattle grazing and off-roading.

·         Demonstrate the effectiveness of wildlife friendly fencing in the face of Range Branch’s reluctance to use same.

On the latter point we are less than optimistic. Range Branch has shown no ability or inclination to change their practices for the benefit af anything other than cattle grazing.

More detail, location maps of NT property, expanded comment and more pics to come in the website expanded version) at: www.boundaryalliance.org