Likely Prairie Peaks News and reporter Grady Semmens received a bit of flack regarding what was supposed to be a shining example of environmental legacy at Dead Man’s Flats (Prairie Peaks News, Dec. – Jan. 2005). The fact is that this G-8 Legacy Project at Dead Man’s Flats will accomplish only a fraction of its potential because the federal, provincial and local governments refused to co-operate to help wildlife cross the Trans-Canada Highway. In spite of the indignation expressed by MD Reeve Paul Ryan (Canmore Leader, Dec. 15, 2004), most of the responsibility for this fiasco rests with the MD of Bighorn council.

Council received more than ample testimony from a long list of professionals and private citizens warning about significant problems with BHB Canmore’s proposal to build a residential and industrial complex at Dead Man’s Flats. The proposal squeezes wildlife into unacceptably narrow spaces. Revegetation of the wildlife corridor itself would take years, leaving wildlife vulnerable in the meantime. Additional hamlet residents likely would claim the wildlife corridor as their personal playground, putting themselves and their children at risk and frightening wildlife away. And the measures suggested by the developer to mitigate environmental impact were laughable and roundly criticized by wildlife professionals.

The only supporters for the project were the developers and their paid consultants. Independent consultants and provincial wildlife experts panned the proposal and its faulty environmental assessment, citing a number of shortcomings. A consultant hired by the MD in September posed no less than seven pages of questions, criticisms and concerns. His and other professional concerns were all but ignored by the MD council in their approval of bylaws to grease the skids for BHB’s development.

These concerns were not lost on Bighorn ratepayers and other citizens testifying at the MD’s two public hearings. I cannot recall a single public witness who supported the project. Even the MD administration argued that more residences and fewer industrial lots likely meant higher costs and fewer financial benefits for the MD. But councillors countered that some decade-old handshake obligated them to “honour” a secret deal with the BHB developers. So they save one approved the project.

In spite of strong public opposition and overwhelming scientific evidence, Bow Valley elected officials have permitted one more nail in the coffin of Bow Valley wildlife.

Unfortunately, there have been far too many others. In November 2004, officials confirmed what citizens and biologists have known for more than a decade: that the ill-placed Peaks of Grassi development is an abysmal ecological failure (see Canmore Leader, Dec., 8, 2004). How many more approvals of lousy projects will we see over the next decade? How many more can the Bow Valley’s wildlife tolerate? How many more lame excuses will follow?

- Jim Pissot, Executive Director, Defenders of Wildlife Canada

Blunderpass Article Disturbing

The article “Blunderpass Could be a Wasteful Legacy” (Prairie Peaks News, Dec. Jan. 2005) is extremely disturbing, given its lack of editorial control. Where in the article is there evidence of your reporter having discussions with the MD of Bighorn or the other levels of government?

You won’t find any evidence, because the discussions never took place. Author Grady Semmens did not contact nor attempt to discuss the MD’s position on the underpass, the lands controlled by BHB Canmore, nor any other facet of the so-called controversy. This questionable piece of reporting presents only one side of the story, and fails to meet with the acceptable standards of responsible journalism.

Your report fails to note the following:
1. The BHB proposal has been significantly down-sized throughout a 15-year planning process. It has gone from a 275-acre tourist resort project, down to a 35-acre residential and light industrial subdivision.
2. The project has been measured against the Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group guidelines for development, and, with few exceptions, has met those guidelines. It is extremely important to note that the light industrial component of the project, in particular, meets with a certain level of acceptance in the guidelines, which finds those uses to be the least prohibitive to wildlife.
3. The lands are not “forested municipal reserve lands.” Rather, they have been zoned and designated for development, since the MD was incorporated back in 1989. In fact, a considerable portion of the lands aren’t virgin grounds. There was a former nuisance grounds in close proximity to the underpass opening, and the MD’s lagoon site is also located in the area.
4. The lands are not wildlife corridor lands; they are wildlife habitat patch lands. Note that, out of the original 275 acres, 240 remain for this habitat. Even where there is development, there are substantial travel routes available, and several river crossing points have been located well away from the remaining lands, so it is doubtful wildlife will be significantly affected.
5. Your writer notes a shooting range on the south side of the tunnel. Perhaps he should have queried Dr. Bruce Lesson on this; he indicated the shooting range is a benefit, not detriment, to the wildlife. Lesson says the shooting range creates a “sanctuary” for wildlife, a feeding and resting area enjoyed by many animals traversing the area.

We hope future articles present better balance and focus, for the sake of your readers and the sake of your publication’s credibility.

- Paul Ryan, Reeve MD of Bighorn

Alberta Elk Ranchers True Conservationists

The price of diversity and uniqueness can be high when it is charged by the uninformed, sporting false accusation and conclusions. Your December/January edition featured an article about elk farming that speaks loudly to the questionable motivations of at least some so called “conservation” groups and their obvious agenda to end elk and deer farming. Ignorance should have no place in a public forum where people expect to obtain a balanced story.

Farmers are this country’s true conservationists. They live off the land and depend on it, and environmental conservation ensures their livelihood for today and for generations to come. Elk farmers are no exception; conserving habitat and wetlands is a natural part of what we do because elk thrive on the farm in a natural habitat.

Do those who would have us believe their objective is to protect animals actually expect Albertans to believe that elk farmers, who have enormous financial and moral investments in their animals and infrastructure, would negotiate and agree to import policies that would endanger either their investment or that of the wildlife in Alberta? What ridiculous conjecture. Firstly, Health Canada has stated that Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has never been transmitted to humans and testing is recommended as only a precautionary procedure. Secondly, elk farms are the most highly regulated livestock industry in existence, with annual third party animal inventory audits, mandatory disease surveillance and on farm inspections (to name a few) are a way of life in our industry.

Elk farmers in Alberta have tested more than 15,500 farmed elk for CWD since 1996, with only just more than 600 wild elk in Alberta tested over the same time period. Saskatchewan’s farmed elk surveillance numbers are similar. Elk farmers are serious about disease surveillance.

CWD has been found in the wild in Saskatchewan and in a couple of cases, within 30 km of the Alberta border. Who is maintaining a border vigil for “wild animal” movement?

Scientists state that the incubation period for CWD is less than 30 months. Alberta’s import protocols require that animals must be from farms with a minimum of three years of surveillance. The imported animal(s) then must be under surveillance and movement restrictions for a total of five years once on the farm in Alberta. Sealed trailers transport the animals into Alberta where government officials remove the seal. This is all obvious evidence of a responsible industry.

So, have we finally set the record straight? Elk farmers in Alberta love their animals, they admire all types of wildlife (their love and respect for wildlife is the motivation for many elk farmers) and have a great respect for the environment. We accept all the responsibilities and rewards that go with being stewards of our land and our animals. Please take the time to learn all sides of an issue so you can make informed decisions and not be unduly influenced by the whims of ill-motivated groups and individuals with hidden agendas.

- Glenda Elkow, Chair, Alberta Elk Commission

Farmers Will Miss Old SaskPool

A couple of recent news stories suggested there is general cheering greeting recent announcements out of Regina that Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (SaskPool or just the “Pool” as it has been known in Saskatchewan) is going to finally pass control of its governance structure from the hands of the farmers who founded the organization into the hands of the investors. Unlike the writers of those articles, and perhaps the investors whose views they appear to represent, I greeted the announcement with resignation and sadness.

I was on the Pool’s executive team during the ’80s, just prior to its run of significant acquisitions, and have watched the organization since then. I have expected a similar announcement and perhaps more, or worse, depending on your point of view, since the Pool fell on hard times in the late 90s. It terminated a CEO who had expanded their operations substantially and appointed a CEO who came out of a U.S. agricultural multi-business.

I recall discussing this development with former Saskatchewan colleagues and, despite acknowledging that, after the acquisition fervor, retrenchment was required, we shared the view that the organization was being set up for sale to a large multinational agribusinesses.

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool was established in 1924 by a group of farmers and their supporters who were seeking to provide farmers in that province with a greater degree of control over their economic lives. Initially, the Pool was focused on providing an alternative to what were called the “line companies,” private grain handlers who essentially controlled the marketing of Saskatchewan product. From small beginnings, the Pool evolved into a major agribusiness conglomerate.

SaskPool was once the largest, and arguably the most successful, agricultural co-operative in Canada. The grain side alone handled 60 per cent of the grain moving out of the prairies and that was supplemented by flour milling, manufacturing of bakery mixes, selling retail farm supplies, livestock, and publishing the farm newspaper the Western Producer. Despite its size, we knew even then the organization was so tied to the prairie harvest that, to attain stable revenues, the nature of the business would need to change.

In the late 1980s, we missed an opportunity to merge with Manitoba Pool Elevators and Alberta Wheat Pool probably the last opportunity to save these traditional grain-handling co-operatives. As we have subsequently seen, the Manitoba and Alberta pools subsequently merged, forming Agricore and then merged again with United Grain Growers to form Agricore United.

Although each of these three organizations (Alberta Pool, Manitoba Pool and UGG) was originally a traditional co-operative, first UGG then the new organization moved to create a hybrid governance structure, as SaskPool did eventually. These moves opened ownership to non-producers and resulted in the election of non-farmer directors to the boards, diminishing the first principle on which the organizations were founded producer ownership and control.

Around 1994, SaskPool went through a leadership change and then embarked more heavily on the acquisition trail, picking up additional companies and business lines, albeit agriculture related. It was this change in leadership and ultimately corporate direction that I believe led to what, in retrospect, was an over-extension of the company’s resources.

As with many organizations that chose such a path, the chickens came home to roost, and the company found itself in severe financial difficulties in the late 1990s. In 2000, the Pool appointed a new CEO from outside the organization and, more importantly, from outside the co-operative sector.

For me, this appointment signaled a break with the past and ultimately the demise of the co-operative way of doing business. The organization began to pare back, shedding employees and businesses as it struggled with its finances and investor expectations. While no one could argue the problem didn’t need to be fixed, one might question whether it needed to be fixed in the traditional corporate model or whether the organization could have adhered to its founders’ principles.

Today, gleeful media commentary praise the organization for finally coming to its senses and moving to give true control to the non-producer shareholders and their pending majority on the board of directors. For me, this is a reason for sadness and concern. There is no question the board management made mistakes, and, in that, they are as culpable as the leaders of the other significant businesses that have found themselves in financial straits over the past 10 or 15 years.

But, we are set to lose another institution that was born to represent and protect the member owners’ economic and agricultural policy interests. This is the reason we should be concerned.

There is no question that farmers are a resilient bunch, and they will undoubtedly find a way to continue to influence policy and agricultural economics at both the federal and provincial level. But the demise of the prairie grain co-ops leaves a major hole in their defence.

I will not join the cheering for the SaskPool changes.

David Wartman is a Calgary-based management consultant and former Director of Human Resources for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool

*letters
In each issue, space is reserved for reader feedback, ideas and stories – and we invite you to send them to us. Didn’t agree with something we said? Have something to add? Enjoyed something immensely? We’d like to hear about it. You can email us or write to us at Prairie Peaks News, 10th floor, 610 – 8th Avenue SW, Calgary, AB, T2P 1G5

Support our efforts to produce independent journalism about western Canadians, for western Canadians by subscribing today!

Prairie Peaks News is an independent, subscriber funded, non-profit media company.

Sponsor

Telsiz sitemiz açılıyor.

İletişimin en kral sitesi olacak olan eltelsizi.info pek yakında açılıyor. İletişim dünyasının atalarından olan ancak günümüzde unutulmaya yüz tutmuş olan telsiz sistemleri hakkında açılmış bir site. İsmindende anlaşılacagı üzere telsiz dünyasından haberler en son üretilen cihazlar gibi donanım kısımları var.

Telsiz üzerine açılmış bir blogda ayrıca el telsizleri hakkında bilgiler, telsiz fiyatları, el telsizleri modelleri, motorola el telsizi, el telsizi hakkında kullanım bilgileri gibi son derece gelişmiş özellikler yer almaktadır.

Anlayacagınız sitemiz içerinde el telsizi hakkında  bol bol bilgiyi bulabileceksiniz. Bu site ile telsiz sevdanız doyum noktasına ulaşacaktır gibi çok iddalı bir söz bile dile getirebiliyorum. En kısa zamanda el telsizi sitemizi ziyarete gelmenizi istiyoruz. Emin olunki elektronik anlamda doyuma ulaiacaksınız