While a new generation of greenies proselytize the religion of “sustainability” to farmers who have successfully cropped land for over a hundred years, those “knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing*” landowners are – as usual – expected to take the hit for Ontario’s Endangered Species Act;
The reason for the May 8 demonstration is that control of my land’s management is being ripped from my hands by our government. My ancestors left conditions like this (Scotland 200 years ago) to carve a new future, here in Canada. I still awe at the stones that they moved with brute strength fuelled by passion for freedom and ownership, to clear fields, build homes and to produce food and wealth through hard labour and dedicated industry. That spirit resides in my heart and it is what our soldiers have fought and died for in past and present wars.
The issue here is not about environmentalism. It is about freedom and justice. Anne-Marie Flanagan (MNR) said “If a certain area is deemed as a habitat, a farmer could, for example, create a habitat on a different section of the property.” So to put that in urbanese, if there is a public interest in your living room, but you really want to retain usage of your living room, we’re flexible. We’ll take your kitchen or bedroom instead.
As for Minister David Ramsay and “not . . . make it difficult for them to use their land,” I have a lifetime of experience with restrictions imposed by the MNR, and they have made it impossible to grow crops on nearly 200 acres of our land or use it for any other productive purpose. The consequential property devaluation of a 6,000-foot St. Lawrence River water-frontage has destroyed my family’s hard-earned financial equity. His much-touted $18 million stewardship fund (the term compensation is always assiduously avoided) wouldn’t cover the opportunity cost between lots 10 through 20 on the first concession of Lancaster Township. Furthermore, I’m sure I heard that the associated bureaucracy will cost at least 10 times that amount (that information is more difficult to find).
If you think that it’s a good idea to give land up to MNR management, consider the 30-meter buffer strip of our Point Mouillee waterfront, which was surveyed and confiscated in 1980. It is long gone because we were not allowed to protect it with stone – and still can’t. If farmland erodes, it is evidence of a farmer’s irresponsibility, but if the MNR/RRCA decided that land should erode, it’s OK; after all, it’s not really their waterfront, is it? When you get something at no cost, what does it matter?
If the public wants our land, conservation agencies can buy it or rent it, based on its true and intrinsic value, which is a function of unobstructed land-use opportunity. We have always been, and are still quite willing to cooperate to achieve sensible environmental goals. Landowners simply refuse to carry the billion-dollar cost of society’s environmental whims while the extent of an urban citizen’s consideration of the environment involves buying a hybrid car rather than an SUV!
Robbing us of the land’s utility and value is undeniably wrong. Our land is our RSP, pension, or whatever other people do to secure and grow their savings, and its fiduciary value is equity that we’ve been conscientiously investing in for generations. We thought for a while that if we co-operated and gave conservation agencies what they wanted, they would champion our efforts and leave us alone. It doesn’t work that way. Allowing land to be taken without significant resistance only inspires them to take it all. Pay attention everyone. You may not feel that this affects you, but carefully consider Hosea’s warning of “the whirlwind.”
The full text at the link.
This is no isolated conflict of interests – ask rural municpalities and farmers in Saskatchewan about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans never ending efforts to assume stewardship of “fish habitat” in dry creek beds, gravel pits and flooded stubble.