Trilliums
Kate Gregory
Or to dig them up (from public land) to transplant
elsewhere?
This strikes me as a highly unlikely law, provincial
flower or no provincial flower, yet most people
swaer it is true. I'd phone Queen's Park myself but
I don't live in Toronto anymore.
Email, please. If I get a definitive answer I'll post
it to these groups.
Kate
Tony Wallis
> Is it or is it not illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario ? ..
If trillium-picking is legal, then should we allow Sunday-picking ?
Should a (gasp!) *white* flower be a symbol of an NDP-governed province ?
--
to...@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada
Steve Frampton
> Is it or is it not illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario?
> Or to dig them up (from public land) to transplant
> elsewhere?
>
> This strikes me as a highly unlikely law, provincial
> flower or no provincial flower, yet most people
> swaer it is true. I'd phone Queen's Park myself but
> I don't live in Toronto anymore.
You got it! I think it's a $50 fine. After all, it's the official
flower of Ontario.
Personally I think the law is STUPID, drafted by STUPID legislators, but
what can you do. Why is this a worse crime than smashing a bottle on the
street, blowing a red light or stop sign, etc.?
You'd have to be an absolutely idiot to get caught picking one though!
---------------------------------------------
Steve Frampton - fram...@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca
"Prosecutors will be violated."
Doug Zolmer
This 'law' is an urban legend. It's entirely legal to pick trilliums.
--
William Zolmer work: dw...@bnr.ca +1 613 763-8217
home: b...@crib.amiga.ocunix.on.ca (until May 31)
b...@crib.ocunix.on.ca (after May 31)
Bell-Northern Research (my employer) doesn't share my opinions (and vice versa)
Paul Tomblin
>gre...@csri.toronto.edu (Kate Gregory) writes:
>> Is it or is it not illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario?
>> Or to dig them up (from public land) to transplant
>> elsewhere?
>You got it! I think it's a $50 fine. After all, it's the official
>flower of Ontario.
You got it? Where is your documentation for that? I replyed via email,
since that is what she asked for, but now you force me to post this:
It is not. A friend of mine, who is a lawyer and a member of the Canadian
Orienteering team researched it, because orienteering involves a lot of
running over trilliums. What he found was that the only protected plants
are either agricultural or endangered. Trilliums don't count on either
list, since they are just about the most common plant in the woods this
time of year, and no use for agriculture.
His name is Frank Farfan, and last time I checked (admittedly 7 years ago),
he was working for a Bay Street legal firm. The article, with legal
references, was in a Canadian Orienteering Federation newsletter about that
length of time ago. And no, I can't find it in my collection.
--
Paul Tomblin, p...@geovision.gvc.com or {uunet,cognos,revcan}!geovision!pt
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
"No matter what you've lost - be it a home, a love, a friend - like the 'Mary
Ellen Carter' rise again." - Stan Rogers - "Mary Ellen Carter"
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
> Is it or is it not illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario?
> Or to dig them up (from public land) to transplant
> elsewhere?
I have always heard that it was illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario, but
I have heard that if the plant is dug up carefully so that it has a half
decent chance of surviving a transplant then no crime is committed.
Of course, I have never looked into the validity of this.
In article <0FocLB...@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca> fram...@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca (Steve Frampton) writes:
>You'd have to be an absolutely idiot to get caught picking one though!
Very true! In fact the fine should be for getting caught and not the actual
act itself! I once heard a commedian (forget name) discuss how there should
be fines for doing stupid acts, such as pressing a lit elevator button.
He went on and said when caught and fined, a second fine could be imposed
because the person was stupid enough to fall for the first fine!
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
Centre for Advanced Technology Education
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Toronto, Ontario, Candada
Paul Landolt
>If trillium-picking is legal, then should we allow Sunday-picking ?
and observe the common day of Paws.
>Should a (gasp!) *white* flower be a symbol of an NDP-governed province ?
Doesn't the Trillium start out purple/blue? Y'know kinda like a symbol of
having the life CHOKED out of us all?
>to...@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada
--
J. Paul Landolt - CCS/ITS | If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
York University - Toronto, Canaidia | ...unless you're a consultant
+1 416 736 5257 | ----------------------------------
InterNet: lan...@nexus.yorku.ca | My opinions. All mine. So sue me.
Mary Margaret Schuck
>
>> Is it or is it not illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario?
>> Or to dig them up (from public land) to transplant
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> This strikes me as a highly unlikely law, provincial
>> flower or no provincial flower, yet most people
>> swaer it is true.
>what can you do.
relatively rare, and they weren't easy to transplant, having a deep narrow root,
they would be decimated.
The only place it's illegal to pick trilliums is in provincial parks, and it's
illegal to pick anything there.
(And yes, I phoned the Ministry of Natural Resources, I'm not making this up.
:-)
Mary Margaret Schuck.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
My mailer hates everyone. Be sneaky.
sch...@ben.dciem.dnd.ca {decvax,attcan}!utzoo!dciem!ben!schuck
sch...@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca {decvax,attcan}!utzoo!dciem!schuck
Stephanie da Silva
>
> > Is it or is it not illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario?
> I think it's a $50 fine. After all, it's the official flower of Ontario.
Sounds about like the Texas law that makes it illegal to pick bluebonnets.
Bluebonnets being the official state flower, of course.
--
Stephanie da Silva Taronga Park * Houston, Texas
ari...@taronga.com 568-0480 568-1032
"The verisimilitude of my endeavors is far beyond the
grasp of your petty, bourgeois mind." -- Splatter Phoenix
Chris Lewis
>Doesn't the Trillium start out purple/blue? Y'know kinda like a symbol of
>having the life CHOKED out of us all?
Naw, the purple ones and the pink ones are separate species. Kinda like
a symbol of not going along with the rest of the nonsense.
[Oh goody! We can transplant some of the trilliums in our backyard up
closer to the house!]
--
Chris Lewis; cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Steve Frampton
> In article <0FocLB...@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca>, fram...@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca (
> |> gre...@csri.toronto.edu (Kate Gregory) writes:
> |>
> |> > Is it or is it not illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario?
> |> > Or to dig them up (from public land) to transplant
> |> > elsewhere?
> |> >
> |> > This strikes me as a highly unlikely law, provincial
> |> > flower or no provincial flower, yet most people
> |> > swaer it is true. I'd phone Queen's Park myself but
> |> > I don't live in Toronto anymore.
> |>
> |> You got it! I think it's a $50 fine. After all, it's the official
> |> flower of Ontario.
> |>
>
> This 'law' is an urban legend. It's entirely legal to pick trilliums.
That's not what I've heard! In fact just last week I was informed by the
tourism bureau that it was against the law. I'll have to ask about this
and get back to you when I know for sure.
Chris Retterath
law in the works -- a law requiring anyone who cuts down a tree to
get a permit from their local government! Apparantly some old legislation
concerning trees is being rewritten this fall, and some
dudley-do-right committee is going to recommend this kind of law!
Now, I love trees (and I've planted thousands), but I expect
to be able to cut what I want -- whether for sale, firewood, disease
control, or whatever. The main effect is to *my* property alone.
If my neighbour continues selling wood from his woodlot this year,
he runs the risk of losing a fine forest -- but he won't, because
there is only so much good stuff (which means lots of new trees will
grow in the empty spaces), and because he is smart enough not to
wipe out his future earnings from that land.
Looks like we're trying to adopt the soviet system of government
-- more and more insane laws, giving power & jobs to flunkies everywhere.
There are an incredible number of people pushing for more and more laws
to restrict what we do, what choices we have, and telling us how
to live our lives. Stop letting them push us around, folks!
Ontario is looking more like a 'peoples republic' all the time.
Chris Retterath
Mike Berger
>Is it or is it not illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario?
>Or to dig them up (from public land) to transplant
>elsewhere?
>This strikes me as a highly unlikely law, provincial
>flower or no provincial flower, yet most people
>swaer it is true. I'd phone Queen's Park myself but
>I don't live in Toronto anymore.
*----
They're protected in Illinois, so I wouldn't be surprised to find
it's illegal to pick them elsewhere too.
--
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET 217-244-6067
Internet ber...@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Chris Lewis
>All this talk about trilliums is interesting, but there is an sillier
>law in the works -- a law requiring anyone who cuts down a tree to
>get a permit from their local government! Apparantly some old legislation
>concerning trees is being rewritten this fall, and some
>dudley-do-right committee is going to recommend this kind of law!
>Now, I love trees (and I've planted thousands), but I expect
>to be able to cut what I want -- whether for sale, firewood, disease
>control, or whatever. The main effect is to *my* property alone.
The reason for these laws is fairly simple. It's not really aimed
at the individual home-owner cutting the occasional tree. It's
really aimed at the unnecessary clear-cutting (and I really mean
*clear*) that some developers resort to as part of development.
The "property" they're talking about is the dozens of square miles
that developers have "banked" in the Toronto area alone.
The law is aimed at things like:
- the razing of several acres of good hardwood forest behind the
new hotel on highway 7 just east of the 404. The owner
wasn't intending to do anything there. Just sheared it
all off. No reason anyone could discern. Probably
a quick buck by selling it off as firewood.
- 10's of acres of forest destroyed on the 404 up near
Major Mac. In fact, Markham town council had insisted
that the woodlot not be touched as a condition of issuing
a subdivision permit. The developer got the permit, then
promptly demolished the area. Town council couldn't
do *anything* about it - you can't revoke permits once
issued.
- Developers up north of Toronto use what can best be
described as "scorched earth" development practises -
stripping as much as 15 feet of topsoil, and completely
destroying any remnants of natural vegetation. In some
cases several square miles in one shot. Particularly
in Richmond Hill.
- The conversion of an acre of two of mature Black Walnut
into firewood (blasphemy! ;-) up in Markham. *After*
MTRCA and Markham told them not to.
If you are maintaining your property, doing reasonable things to
maintain the health of your woodlot there should be no trouble - even
if you're selling some of it as firewood. But if you're going to raze
it, then you'll have problems.
A tree cutting bylaw is long overdue. Especially one province-wide.
A little inconvenience is, IMO, worth it, given the extreme
abuses that developers have been getting away with in the past.
And without a tree-cutting bylaw, there's nothing you can do about
what they're doing.
I have a 10 acre woodlot. Some of it best described as old-growth.
I will be doing the occasional cutting, trying to encourage the
spreading out of the better trees and growing conditions, some
firewood and possibly even some lumber. I still welcome
a tree-cutting law. Especially province-wide.
[I suspect Save the Rouge Valley System had something to do with the
proposed law. I was a member of the executive....]
Kevin Tate
>
>> Is it or is it not illegal to pick trilliums in Ontario?
>> Or to dig them up (from public land) to transplant
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> This strikes me as a highly unlikely law, provincial
>> flower or no provincial flower, yet most people
>> swaer it is true. I'd phone Queen's Park myself but
>> I don't live in Toronto anymore.
>
>You got it! I think it's a $50 fine. After all, it's the official
>flower of Ontario.
>
>Personally I think the law is STUPID, drafted by STUPID legislators, but
>what can you do. Why is this a worse crime than smashing a bottle on the
>street, blowing a red light or stop sign, etc.?
>
>You'd have to be an absolutely idiot to get caught picking one though!
The Summer 1992 catalogue for Cruickshank's (a Toronto area nursery)
lists five varieties of Trilliums, including the cultivar which is
Ontario's native flower, for 3 for $8.95. If you really want
Trilliums, give them a call (416-488-8292).
I can not understand why people object to laws which forbid them from
digging something up from its native environment and bringing it home.
These people should read about Turkey, where the demand for its
native wildflowers has meant their virtual extinction in the wild.
Could you imagine going on a hike and *not* seeing a Trillium or
Orchid?
Buying plants from nursery grown stock makes much more sense.
Hopefully, before people make that purchase they will more carefully
consider whether they can provide exactly the right conditions.
Although I do not have Trilliums in my garden, I strongly suspect they
will not just grow anywhere since they seem to require dappled shade
from high foliage, open areas with low wind, and soil which is cool,
moist, and of neutral acidity. Sounds like a good challenge!
Kevin Tate
SCO Canada, Inc.
D. Hugh Redelmeier
| In article <1992May28.1...@mks.com> ch...@mks.com (Chris Retterath) writes:
| >All this talk about trilliums is interesting, but there is an sillier
| >law in the works -- a law requiring anyone who cuts down a tree to
| >get a permit from their local government! Apparantly some old legislation
| >concerning trees is being rewritten this fall, and some
| >dudley-do-right committee is going to recommend this kind of law!
...
| The reason for these laws is fairly simple. It's not really aimed
| at the individual home-owner cutting the occasional tree. It's
| really aimed at the unnecessary clear-cutting (and I really mean
| *clear*) that some developers resort to as part of development.
| The "property" they're talking about is the dozens of square miles
| that developers have "banked" in the Toronto area alone.
There is a reason that developers clearcut trees. As I understand
it (somewhat simplified), when a developer submits a plan of
subdivision for zoning approval, he must not develop ANSIs (not the
American National Standards Institute, but Areas of Natural or
Scientific Interest) including woods. These will generally be
"dedicated" (given) to the public. On the the other hand, land
without trees is worth many thousands of dollars an acre. So it
behooves a developer to raze forests surreptitiously before filing
any zoning applications.
Another bad effect of this system is to strongly discourage creation
of new woodlots or the extension of old ones.
Hugh Redelmeier
hu...@mimosa.com or {utcsri, yunexus, utzoo, scocan}!redvax!hugh
When all else fails: hu...@csri.toronto.edu
+1 416 482-8253
Bruce M. Walker
[...]
> Although I do not have Trilliums in my garden, I strongly suspect they
> will not just grow anywhere since they seem to require dappled shade
> from high foliage, open areas with low wind, and soil which is cool,
> moist, and of neutral acidity. Sounds like a good challenge!
Also, according to a book I got from the Royal Botanical Gardens, a
transplanted trillium will probably not flower for three years after
being moved -- they are very sensitive!
We have one or two in our garden, and they get the kind of conditions
Kevin notes above. There is exactly one place in that garden where
these conditions all (except "open") exist, and we take great pains
to keep it that way.
Frankly its a heck of a lot easier to take a stroll in the Humber
valley and see hundreds of trilliums growing happily in their natural
habitat.
--
"The Fireworks Have Just Begun!" -- Captain Zilog
b...@isgtec.com [ ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!bmw ] Bruce Walker
Chris Retterath
>In article <1992May28.1...@mks.com> ch...@mks.com (Chris Retterath) writes:
>>All this talk about trilliums is interesting, but there is an sillier
>>law in the works -- a law requiring anyone who cuts down a tree to
>>get a permit from their local government! Apparantly some old legislation
>>concerning trees is being rewritten this fall, and some
>>dudley-do-right committee is going to recommend this kind of law!
>
>>Now, I love trees (and I've planted thousands), but I expect
>>to be able to cut what I want -- whether for sale, firewood, disease
>>control, or whatever. The main effect is to *my* property alone.
>
>The reason for these laws is fairly simple. It's not really aimed
>at the individual home-owner cutting the occasional tree.
And the government will provide blanket permits to destroy northern
forests with clearcutting.
>really aimed at the unnecessary clear-cutting (and I really mean
>*clear*) that some developers resort to as part of development.
>The "property" they're talking about is the dozens of square miles
>that developers have "banked" in the Toronto area alone.
Razing a woodlot is not what they're talking about so far.
It's cutting trees!
>The law is aimed at things like:
> - the razing of several acres of good hardwood forest behind the
> new hotel on highway 7 just east of the 404. The owner
> wasn't intending to do anything there. Just sheared it
> all off. No reason anyone could discern. Probably
> a quick buck by selling it off as firewood.
Is this really a problem .. most people would keep a woodlot but perhaps
the land is going to be developed. You don't know but you want to stop them.
Exactly the kind of attitude I'm protesting, btw.
> - 10's of acres of forest destroyed on the 404 up near
> Major Mac. In fact, Markham town council had insisted
> that the woodlot not be touched as a condition of issuing
> a subdivision permit. The developer got the permit, then
> promptly demolished the area. Town council couldn't
> do *anything* about it - you can't revoke permits once
> issued.
Well, they could threaten to withhold occupancy permits, sewer hookups, etc,
since the developer didn't live up the the agreement.
> - Developers up north of Toronto use what can best be
> described as "scorched earth" development practises -
> stripping as much as 15 feet of topsoil, and completely
> destroying any remnants of natural vegetation. In some
> cases several square miles in one shot. Particularly
> in Richmond Hill.
This is idiotic because of water pollution problems -- they should be
taken to court for destroying spawning grounds. (Silt runoff)
Around here I see developers with matt screening to try prevent water
problems. The recession has made it worse because some cleared land is
being left until the market picks up.
But it makes good sense to strip the topsoil -- after running heavy equipment
on it, the compaction would kill most trees. Better to strip, develop, and
then restore the topsoil, planting new trees.
> - The conversion of an acre of two of mature Black Walnut
> into firewood (blasphemy! ;-) up in Markham. *After*
> MTRCA and Markham told them not to.
It sounds like you care that it went to firewood -- why? And how
do you know? Only heartwood is good for furniture, so unless the walnut
is quite large it isn't useful for anything but burning.
Again, you want to tell the owner what to do. Its not your business.
>If you are maintaining your property, doing reasonable things to
^^^^^^^^^^
>maintain the health of your woodlot there should be no trouble - even
>if you're selling some of it as firewood. But if you're going to raze
^^^^^^^
>it, then you'll have problems.
Who decides what is reasonable? And why the angst about selling wood?
Professional foresters can't make up their minds about things.
There are fads and mistakes here as well as everywhere else.
The market should decide whether a bare field or a woodlot are worth more,
not some government flunkie. If I make a mistake, I pay for it in
reduced property values. If I destroy a habitat, I may be liable; that's
why we have laws on fishery protection.
Anyway, if these are the concerns, why not put the proposals
forward as habitat protection? What we have now is a proposal for
hassling people.
Incidentally, the same Ontario government, which wants to control
us ever more, is busily handing off the natural resources to Indians.
They no longer enforce hunting/fishing season restrictions to Indians.
Indians have been seen spearing the spawning fish, helping to further
deplete the fishery. Why the dichotomy? I think it has something to
do with NDP 'white-man's guilt', but I don't really know.
Chris Retterath
MKS Inc
Ray Butterworth [MFCF]
>That's not what I've heard! In fact just last week I was informed by the
>tourism bureau that it was against the law. I'll have to ask about this
>and get back to you when I know for sure.
Whether it's legal or not, don't do it.
Trilliums must grow for about seven years before they can flower.
If you pick the flower (which usually includes the leaves)
what is left can't produce enough food to sustain the plant
until next year, so it dies. Not only have you killed this
trillium, even if a new one should decide to grow in its place
it will take another seven years before it flowers.
Charles Lasner
Man, you are talking about poppies, which, as the phrase goes, is also a
flower, but in any case we aren't talking about people who want flowers in
their homes, we ae talking about dope!
cjl (not a narc :-))
Chris Lewis
>In article <34...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>really aimed at the unnecessary clear-cutting (and I really mean
>>*clear*) that some developers resort to as part of development.
>>The "property" they're talking about is the dozens of square miles
>>that developers have "banked" in the Toronto area alone.
> Razing a woodlot is not what they're talking about so far.
> It's cutting trees!
Not seeing the forest for the trees... The law covers both.
Tell me the legal difference between demolishing a woodlot and cutting
a few trees. There is none. The law permits either, *provided* that
it is approved first. That's what we have zoning and building permits
for. There's essentially no difference between requiring building permits
and tree cutting permits.
>>The law is aimed at things like:
>> - the razing of several acres of good hardwood forest behind the
>> new hotel on highway 7 just east of the 404. The owner
>> wasn't intending to do anything there. Just sheared it
>> all off. No reason anyone could discern. Probably
>> a quick buck by selling it off as firewood.
>Is this really a problem .. most people would keep a woodlot but perhaps
>the land is going to be developed. You don't know but you want to stop them.
>Exactly the kind of attitude I'm protesting, btw.
3 years later it's still 2 acres of bulldozed stumps and fallen timber.
If they're going to develop it, they should at least apply for the
appropriate zoning change, or a building permit *first*. After all,
we require them to obtain a permit before digging the hole, why not
before preparing the site?
Chances are that they may have been thinking of developing the land
10 or 15 years from now, but knew that if there was a woodlot on it,
it would be harder to get permits.
>> - 10's of acres of forest destroyed on the 404 up near
>> Major Mac. In fact, Markham town council had insisted
>> that the woodlot not be touched as a condition of issuing
>> a subdivision permit. The developer got the permit, then
>> promptly demolished the area. Town council couldn't
>> do *anything* about it - you can't revoke permits once
>> issued.
>Well, they could threaten to withhold occupancy permits, sewer hookups, etc,
>since the developer didn't live up the the agreement.
Utility permits had already been granted, and once given cannot be
revoked (except for technical/code violations). The best they could do
would be perhaps a couple of thousand dollar fine. Peanuts when compared
to a multi-million dollar subdivision.
Markham Town council went against the advice of their planning and
engineering dept which had recommended withholding utility permits.
Then again, considering the revelations about councilors and developers
in Markham and Vaughn a few years back, plus the fact that 80%+ of
all campaign contributions to municipal officials is from developers
or real estate companies, what do you expect?
>> - Developers up north of Toronto use what can best be
>> described as "scorched earth" development practises -
>> stripping as much as 15 feet of topsoil, and completely
>> destroying any remnants of natural vegetation. In some
>> cases several square miles in one shot. Particularly
>> in Richmond Hill.
>This is idiotic because of water pollution problems -- they should be
>taken to court for destroying spawning grounds. (Silt runoff)
Idiotic certainly. Doesn't stop them does it?
That isn't against the law in the tiny little streams they do. A charge
of destruction of spawning grounds only works if there's fish in it.
A couple bottles of javex will quickly solve that. Hell, they usually
don't have to bother - after it's been clobbered with runoff, nobody
can prove that there ever were fish in it. Funny thing - in many small
streams you can find small fish - but never after a developer decides
to do something about the surrounding land.
You have no idea how fragile fishing is in the Toronto area.
The Rouge River supports quite a bit of fishing - *only* because
there are a lot of people watching out for spills and other water
condition changes. Every year there are a couple of dozen confirmed
reports, several of which are major enough to threaten the entire
river. You'd be surprised at the network of people monitoring the
river, along with works people in Scarborough (one of the more
enlightened municipalities), and Ontario MOE who have personal
commitments to the Rouge and scramble at the slightest problem.
Still, it's only a matter of time before one incident destroys it.
Like the commercial development in the Markham area which had bulldozers
pushing junk into the river. When challenged? "Gee, it just fell in".
In point of fact, in the MTRCA jurisdiction the only thing that they care
about is bank stability on small streams. So what developers do is bulldoze
the streams and convert them into concrete sewers with a 50 yard grass bank.
>Around here I see developers with matt screening to try prevent water
>problems.
That's because they've ruined the existing bank structure. So they
replace it with riprap, screening, gabian baskets or concrete. Which
needs continual maintenance - at taxpayers expense.
Why did they bother? Who knows. Probably to make a few bucks off the
topsoil and any trees and dump the resulting problem on the taxpayers.
Why do you think that there's so much attention paid to spring flood
and summer drought in Toronto? Because it's been so completely deforested.
No water retention - spring flood, major storm and blooie. More
taxpayer money.
What's worse is that the Oakridges moraine is being eaten away by
the midnight dumpers - and that's where a lot of the area's water
comes from and the source of *all* of the rivers in the Metro area.
>But it makes good sense to strip the topsoil -- after running heavy equipment
>on it, the compaction would kill most trees. Better to strip, develop, and
>then restore the topsoil, planting new trees.
This is ridiculous on several grounds.
First of all, even in moderately dense subdivisions it is possible to
dig foundations without making everything in the area look like ground
zero in a thermonuclear strike. There are many subdivisions around that
are proof of that - still with original trees doing just fine.
Second, why do they bulldoze the areas allocated for parks too? They
didn't have to run equipment there at all.
Third, you're crazy if you think they replace the topsoil. No way.
It's piled up and trucked about and sold. The new home owner
gets a yard that's an inch of sod laid on top of hardpan (usually
clay) along with the construction debries that have been driven
in by the bulldozers.
Fourth. 10 *feet*?
The only way the home owner gets real topsoil is if he buys it back.
At a couple of hundred bucks a load.
>> - The conversion of an acre of two of mature Black Walnut
>> into firewood (blasphemy! ;-) up in Markham. *After*
>> MTRCA and Markham told them not to.
>It sounds like you care that it went to firewood -- why? And how
>do you know? Only heartwood is good for furniture, so unless the walnut
>is quite large it isn't useful for anything but burning.
>Again, you want to tell the owner what to do. Its not your business.
The use of the wood was only parenthetical. What we really cared
about was that the developer quite possibly bribed an MTRCA summer
employee to misdraw a "top of bank" line almost in the bloody creek.
But we'll never know because the employee fled the subpoena we attempted
to serve on her to appear in the OMB hearing.
The trees in question were below top of bank. Markham obtained
a promise from them to not cut them down. Didn't do any good - they
got bulldozed anyways. To add insult to injury, OMB ruled that
top of bank was whereever MTRCA said it was. Even if it was
under water. But if we had managed to serve that subpoena, it might
have been a different story.
Again parenthetically - they were plenty large enough for cabinet making -
some in excess of 4 feet in diameter.
Again parenthetical, at least the delay of the OMB hearing cost the
developer the chance to market his homes before the housing prices
collapsed. Three years later he's only sold a couple.
>>If you are maintaining your property, doing reasonable things to
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>maintain the health of your woodlot there should be no trouble - even
>>if you're selling some of it as firewood. But if you're going to raze
> ^^^^^^^
>>it, then you'll have problems.
>Who decides what is reasonable? And why the angst about selling wood?
No angst. The "even" is intended to allay fears of government intervention.
Not an indication of what I think of it.
Proper woodlot management or even reasonable exploitation involves
cutting trees. If I remember right, for example, 2 acres of woodlot
will supply a home with firewood indefinately and at the same time
improve the quality of the woodlot. Or, it can be sold. No
problem - I might even do a bit of that with our woodlot - we have
a section of very high quality trees that I would like to extend
by removing some dead and dying diseased poplar. One way of doing that
would be to permit a company to come and do some removal of the
junk - in payment he'd get a couple of the big trees - and the woodlot
gets improved by a little bit of thinning, and the ability to
improve the drainage in a few places and replant. Our municipality
has a tree cutting bylaw - this sort of stuff is permitted - the
guy across the road just had it done.
Hell, considering what municipalities let developers get away with,
what on earth are *you* worried about?
>Professional foresters can't make up their minds about things.
>There are fads and mistakes here as well as everywhere else.
Some professional foresters are in the employ of logging companies.
Some are not. It's not surprising that they often disagree.
Though what this has to do with the current question is beyond me.
>The market should decide whether a bare field or a woodlot are worth more,
>not some government flunkie. If I make a mistake, I pay for it in
>reduced property values. If I destroy a habitat, I may be liable; that's
>why we have laws on fishery protection.
We're not talking about market value. Market value is a short-sighted
view of how much *you* get for it. Undeveloped, unzoned, and forested
land is worth a couple thousand bucks an acre. In many cases
it's difficult to obtain building permits for subdivisions in forests.
So the simple thing to do is nuke it *before* asking for the permit -
then it's worth 10's of thousands an acre. Getting zoning approval?
Sure, easy, whatever habitat was there is already gone.
Market value assessment would suggest that we simply raze everything
to a 100 miles out. All of the land would be worth more. Yeah,
but all of the rivers would be open sewers like the Don, no
birds or any wildlife, we'd get flooded out every year, and most
of the communities around Toronto wouldn't have any water come
summer. More taxpayers money for pipes and water treatment plants
on Lake Ontario.
Habitat destruction? A pittance.
And how would a smallholder know whether what he was doing was
habitat destruction without asking/getting a permit first?
>Anyway, if these are the concerns, why not put the proposals
>forward as habitat protection? What we have now is a proposal for
>hassling people.
No different than zoning or building permits.
>Incidentally, the same Ontario government, which wants to control
>us ever more, is busily handing off the natural resources to Indians.
>They no longer enforce hunting/fishing season restrictions to Indians.
>Indians have been seen spearing the spawning fish, helping to further
>deplete the fishery. Why the dichotomy? I think it has something to
>do with NDP 'white-man's guilt', but I don't really know.
It's more like fulfulling the contractual treaty obligations that the
provincial governments signed with these indians long ago. Most of the
treaties permitted the indians unrestricted (or reasonably open)
access to hunting, fishing and other use of natural resources forever.
By attempting to stop them, the government is in breach of contract.
We can only be thankful that *most* Indian groups don't overexploit
nature. Not like the developers that would like to raze the entire
Rouge Valley and turn it into executive building lots and golf
courses.
Chris Lewis
Nonsense. There are other wild flowers in Turkey.
Turkey is one of the biggest sources of botanical (species) tulips,
crocus and a host of other garden flowers.
And not all poppies produce opium either.
Robert Osborne
> Proper woodlot management or even reasonable exploitation involves
> cutting trees. If I remember right, for example, 2 acres of woodlot
> will supply a home with firewood indefinately and at the same time
> improve the quality of the woodlot. Or, it can be sold.
Two acres sounds pretty close. Our family has cut firewood, logs, and
pulpwood from a single 100 acre plot for years (we're too lazy to go
all the way back to the other couple of hundred :-). Properly harvested
a section of poplar forest can be cut every 2-3 years. By the time I
was finished my BMath my uncle was cutting maple logs in the same
location where I cut logs to help pay for my university education.
> Chris Retterath writes:
> >Professional foresters can't make up their minds about things.
> >There are fads and mistakes here as well as everywhere else.
>
> Some professional foresters are in the employ of logging companies.
> Some are not. It's not surprising that they often disagree.
Exactly. Professional foresters *KNOW* how much they are fucking
up the land when they clear cut but there is a lot more money in
clear cutting than in harvesting.
Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or rob...@isgtec.com
Chris Retterath
>In article <1992Jun1.1...@mks.com> ch...@mks.com (Chris Retterath) writes:
>>In article <34...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>>really aimed at the unnecessary clear-cutting (and I really mean
>>>*clear*) that some developers resort to as part of development.
>>>The "property" they're talking about is the dozens of square miles
>>>that developers have "banked" in the Toronto area alone.
>> Razing a woodlot is not what they're talking about so far.
>> It's cutting trees!
>
>Not seeing the forest for the trees... The law covers both.
>Tell me the legal difference between demolishing a woodlot and cutting
>a few trees. There is none. The law permits either, *provided* that
>it is approved first. That's what we have zoning and building permits
>for. There's essentially no difference between requiring building permits
>and tree cutting permits.
No legal difference but I suggest there should be. We should distinguish
habitats (and their removal) from thinning, cutting for disease/fire control,
etc.
This discussion is going nowhere. I don't *like* tree permits,
Lewis does. My reasons are personal -- I don't want more government --
and rational (to me) -- I don't think they address the right issues.
>>us ever more, is busily handing off the natural resources to Indians.
>>They no longer enforce hunting/fishing season restrictions to Indians.
>>Indians have been seen spearing the spawning fish, helping to further
>>deplete the fishery. Why the dichotomy? I think it has something to
>>do with NDP 'white-man's guilt', but I don't really know.
>
>It's more like fulfulling the contractual treaty obligations that the
>provincial governments signed with these indians long ago. Most of the
>treaties permitted the indians unrestricted (or reasonably open)
>access to hunting, fishing and other use of natural resources forever.
>By attempting to stop them, the government is in breach of contract.
This is subject to interpretation -- different provinces
have reacted in different ways to the same rulings on this stuff.
[Some of them never signed 'nothing -- it was all done before they existed]
Anyway, there is no way that we can turn over hunting/fishing to indians
without a lot of animosity -- using race to decide a persons rights
is asking for trouble. 'Oh, he's 1/4 cree, he can shoot loons.
I'm 1/8th ojibway, I'm not allowed'.
Chris Retterath
Chris Lewis
|In article <35...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
|>In article <1992Jun1.1...@mks.com> ch...@mks.com (Chris Retterath) writes:
|>>In article <34...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
|>>>really aimed at the unnecessary clear-cutting (and I really mean
|>>>*clear*) that some developers resort to as part of development.
|>>>The "property" they're talking about is the dozens of square miles
|>>>that developers have "banked" in the Toronto area alone.
|>> Razing a woodlot is not what they're talking about so far.
|>> It's cutting trees!
|>Not seeing the forest for the trees... The law covers both.
|>Tell me the legal difference between demolishing a woodlot and cutting
|>a few trees. There is none. The law permits either, *provided* that
|>it is approved first. That's what we have zoning and building permits
|>for. There's essentially no difference between requiring building permits
|>and tree cutting permits.
|No legal difference but I suggest there should be. We should distinguish
|habitats (and their removal) from thinning, cutting for disease/fire control,
|etc.
The question that I was asking was how could you possibly define "thinning"
in such a way that the law, the blunt instrument that it is, can differentiate
between it and razing. Percentage? That doesn't work because it depends on
the trees on the property. On my property, I could do a 90% thin in such a
way that you wouldn't notice. In the same place, I could do a 10% that would
destroy it - just by choosing which trees to cut. Or what ground to
tear into mud to get the wood out. Wood volume? Sheesh, you'd have to have
a degree in forestry to calculate that. Destruction of habitat? Who defines
that? Some people, particularly developers and some municipal councilors,
think grass and concrete is habitat.
|This discussion is going nowhere. I don't *like* tree permits,
|Lewis does. My reasons are personal -- I don't want more government --
|and rational (to me) -- I don't think they address the right issues.
Obviously, Retterath can't see the simple fact that legislation couldn't
be phrased in such a way that deforestation is prevented while
"thinning" or "management" is promoted. The result being that the
only feasible way to prevent abuse is a permit system.
|>>us ever more, is busily handing off the natural resources to Indians.
|>>They no longer enforce hunting/fishing season restrictions to Indians.
|>>Indians have been seen spearing the spawning fish, helping to further
|>>deplete the fishery. Why the dichotomy? I think it has something to
|>>do with NDP 'white-man's guilt', but I don't really know.
|>It's more like fulfulling the contractual treaty obligations that the
|>provincial governments signed with these indians long ago. Most of the
|>treaties permitted the indians unrestricted (or reasonably open)
|>access to hunting, fishing and other use of natural resources forever.
|>By attempting to stop them, the government is in breach of contract.
| This is subject to interpretation -- different provinces
|have reacted in different ways to the same rulings on this stuff.
|[Some of them never signed 'nothing -- it was all done before they existed]
You can't get out of contractual obligations simply by changing management.
|Anyway, there is no way that we can turn over hunting/fishing to indians
|without a lot of animosity -- using race to decide a persons rights
|is asking for trouble. 'Oh, he's 1/4 cree, he can shoot loons.
|I'm 1/8th ojibway, I'm not allowed'.
That's a whole 'nother issue.
Terry Jones
I would like to have a read and see how it affects ME.
thanks.
Chris Retterath
>|No legal difference but I suggest there should be. We should distinguish
>|habitats (and their removal) from thinning, cutting for disease/fire control,
>|etc.
>
>The question that I was asking was how could you possibly define "thinning"
>in such a way that the law, the blunt instrument that it is, can differentiate
>between it and razing. Percentage? That doesn't work because it depends on
>the trees on the property. On my property, I could do a 90% thin in such a
>way that you wouldn't notice. In the same place, I could do a 10% that would
>destroy it - just by choosing which trees to cut. Or what ground to
>tear into mud to get the wood out. Wood volume? Sheesh, you'd have to have
>a degree in forestry to calculate that. Destruction of habitat? Who defines
>that? Some people, particularly developers and some municipal councilors,
>think grass and concrete is habitat.
This is exactly what I don't want -- the 'blunt instrument'
of the law .. for crying out loud, the current proposal covers
isolated shade trees! And what about dying trees ...
'accidental' herbicide spill or a band of copper wire will kill the tree,
and there's no way any law will catch that. And what is a 'tree'?
Does it cover dogwood (a pretty but fast growing pest in a pasture)?
Or trash trees like sumac?
>|This discussion is going nowhere. I don't *like* tree permits,
>|Lewis does. My reasons are personal -- I don't want more government --
>|and rational (to me) -- I don't think they address the right issues.
>
>Obviously, Retterath can't see the simple fact that legislation couldn't
>be phrased in such a way that deforestation is prevented while
>"thinning" or "management" is promoted. The result being that the
>only feasible way to prevent abuse is a permit system.
Yes, I can .. which is why I don't want any law.
The 'abuse' is of a plant on someone's property .. do you want next,
a permit for lawn mowing & brush clearing?
I see the same thing here as happened with house permits,
which Lewis uses as a good example: in some areas, every improvement
needs a permit if the cost is greater then some value. Well, what
about your own labor -- its free, right, noooo, they say to count it
as though you paid someone else! So you now need a permit to paint your house!
And this is true all over Ontario.
Chris Retterath
Chris Lewis
>In article <35...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>|No legal difference but I suggest there should be. We should distinguish
>>|habitats (and their removal) from thinning, cutting for disease/fire control,
>>|etc.
>>The question that I was asking was how could you possibly define "thinning"
>>in such a way that the law, the blunt instrument that it is, can differentiate
>>between it and razing. Percentage? That doesn't work because it depends on
>>the trees on the property. On my property, I could do a 90% thin in such a
>>way that you wouldn't notice. In the same place, I could do a 10% that would
>>destroy it - just by choosing which trees to cut. Or what ground to
>>tear into mud to get the wood out. Wood volume? Sheesh, you'd have to have
>>a degree in forestry to calculate that. Destruction of habitat? Who defines
>>that? Some people, particularly developers and some municipal councilors,
>>think grass and concrete is habitat.
> This is exactly what I don't want -- the 'blunt instrument'
>of the law .. for crying out loud, the current proposal covers
>isolated shade trees! And what about dying trees ...
>'accidental' herbicide spill or a band of copper wire will kill the tree,
>and there's no way any law will catch that.
Sure there will - if intent can be established you can be charged
just as easily.
>And what is a 'tree'?
>Does it cover dogwood (a pretty but fast growing pest in a pasture)?
>Or trash trees like sumac?
I hardly imagine that a permit system would be used to prevent farmers
from keeping their fields in good shape. On the other hand, they'd
certainly want to prevent you from nuking sumacs in classed wetlands
or other controlled-development lands (ie: privately owned parcels
in provincial parks, "hazard land" zoning). You start messing with
the vegetation in a river valley in the Toronto area, you'll have
MTRCA on your neck (or at least they're supposed to). And for good
reason - that bank you defoliate may be the thing that causes the
flood in the subdivision downstream of you and kills people.
>>|This discussion is going nowhere. I don't *like* tree permits,
>>|Lewis does. My reasons are personal -- I don't want more government --
>>|and rational (to me) -- I don't think they address the right issues.
>>
>>Obviously, Retterath can't see the simple fact that legislation couldn't
>>be phrased in such a way that deforestation is prevented while
>>"thinning" or "management" is promoted. The result being that the
>>only feasible way to prevent abuse is a permit system.
> Yes, I can .. which is why I don't want any law.
>The 'abuse' is of a plant on someone's property .. do you want next,
>a permit for lawn mowing & brush clearing?
You just finished saying "We should distinguish habitats (and their
removal) from thinning, cutting for disease/fire control, etc."
Now you say you don't want any law whatsoever.
Which is it? Make up your mind.
[Incidentally, we already *do* have bylaws about lawn mowing and
noxious weeds.]
There are many things that can be done, to mere "plants on someone's
property" that can have effects outside of that property. Ranging
from loss of habitat, destruction of rare species of plant or animals
up to property damage elsewhere or even loss of *human* life.
A permit system for tree cutting gives the chance to at least look at
the consequences.
All you're whining about is inconvenience. Imagine the inconvenience
if the property owner upstream of you clearcuts his land, and floods
your house out, or the hill falls down on your property or....
> I see the same thing here as happened with house permits,
>which Lewis uses as a good example: in some areas, every improvement
>needs a permit if the cost is greater then some value. Well, what
>about your own labor -- its free, right, noooo, they say to count it
>as though you paid someone else! So you now need a permit to paint your house!
>And this is true all over Ontario.
You really don't have a clue do you? Routine maintenance (ie: painting)
doesn't require permits in any jurisdiction that I am aware of.
On the other hand, it's the permit system that:
- gives you, your family, your neighbors, the cops, fireman,
and the poor unlucky sod you sold your house to *some*
assurance that your wiring won't kill them some night.
- gives the same people *some* assurance that your house
won't fall down on them.
- some assurance that your landscaping doesn't flood the
neighborhood after screwing up the drainage, contaminate
the storm sewers after that stump you pulled breaks
the sanitary sewer, or the bank you destabilize falls
into the creek and takes a roadway with it.
- some assurance that your septic bed isn't contaminating
the whole township's water supply.
- some assurance that your DIY natural gas grill doesn't
blow up the neighborhood
- Some assurance that your neighbor won't build a rendering
plant 3 feet from your kitchen window, won't build a shed
in front of your picture window, won't build a pig
farm beside your swimming pool, a high bore rifle range
aimed at your house, an explosives factory in their
basement, or a speaker testing laboratory in their backyard.
- and near and dear to every politicians heart - a chance
to reassess the market value of your property so that
they can tax you on the improvements you made.
Chris Retterath
and are not at all happy.. there may be significant changes in the works.
One suggestion is that farmers get a blanket exemption from requiring
permits to cut trees.
Several farmers have already expressed concern that the law seems to
be designed by urbanites who want to keep the countryside as a park --
while the farmers are trying to make a living from that land.
The concerns about flood plains seem a trifle exaggerated -- at least
in southern ontario, where we have had conservation authorities
for 30 years, with control of the watershed. All the significant waterways
around here are controlled with dams, tree plantings, controlled wetlands,
etc. The arrival of Hurricane Hazel may have had something to do with
the creation of these organizations in the '50s.
>All you're whining about is inconvenience. Imagine the inconvenience
>if the property owner upstream of you clearcuts his land, and floods
>your house out, or the hill falls down on your property or....
This is unlikely.. what is more likely is that someone will
tile drain agricultural land and the creeks will flood very quickly
after a heavy rain. This is permitted & encouraged by the municipal
drains laws -- you have to be prepared to accept the water from uphill.
The law is showing its age -- but like any law, its a blunt instrument.
>> I see the same thing here as happened with house permits,
>>which Lewis uses as a good example: in some areas, every improvement
>>needs a permit if the cost is greater then some value. Well, what
>>about your own labor -- its free, right, noooo, they say to count it
>>as though you paid someone else! So you now need a permit to paint your house!
>>And this is true all over Ontario.
>
>You really don't have a clue do you? Routine maintenance (ie: painting)
>doesn't require permits in any jurisdiction that I am aware of.
It was true in '81, when I finally sold my cottage on Lake Simcoe.
We had a very obnoxious building inspector who tried to force permits
on all sorts of things -- applying the 'letter of the law'.
Perhaps this has changed now -- I don't know.
>On the other hand, it's the permit system that:
[stuff deleted] -- I appreciate the reasons for building permits.
I just don't think they apply to tree cutting. And cut the personal
insults, they aren't convincing me.
> - and near and dear to every politicians heart - a chance
> to reassess the market value of your property so that
> they can tax you on the improvements you made.
Will they lower your taxes after you cut your trees?
Raise them for planting new trees?
Chris Retterath
MKS Inc
Chris Lewis
>Various farm organizations have become aware of the proposed legislation
>and are not at all happy.. there may be significant changes in the works.
>One suggestion is that farmers get a blanket exemption from requiring
>permits to cut trees.
>Several farmers have already expressed concern that the law seems to
>be designed by urbanites who want to keep the countryside as a park --
>while the farmers are trying to make a living from that land.
This displays a lack of awareness of what's actually going on. SRVS,
one of the most powerful and successful environmental lobbying groups,
and probably one of the major pushers of this legislation is a case in
point:
1) A major aspect of the SRVS mandate is the preservation of farm
land for farming.
2) While relatively small in terms of raw numbers the farmer membership
in SRVS is almost 100% in the subject area (Rouge river and
surrounding undeveloped tableland), and these farmers were
disproportionately more active in the SRVS than "mere"
urbanites. Some of them have been very generous in their
support, ie: hayrides during events, trees for reforestation
projects, materials, transport etc.
3) Of the non-farmer membership, the most active aren't urbanites.
In fact, it's hellishly difficult to get typical "urbanites"
interested in these issues at all aside from a token donation.
Less than half of the executive could be termed "urbanites".
4) Of the dozens of incidents and issues that SRVS became involved
with, not a single one related to farming activities that I am
aware of. Though, on a number of occasions, SRVS has provided
professional advice or assistance to farmers with specific problems.
[For example: windbreaks, tree plantings, some water quality
assessment/waste water control.] This varies depending on the
technical expertise available to SRVS at any given moment.
[There's usually some biologists, planners, works dept.,
MAG, MOE, MNR etc. members that can be drawn upon, EYC grants etc,
not to mention all the external contacts SRVS has.]
While there are environmental yahoos, the major organizations that have
the power and wherewithal to actually push a tree cutting bylaw on
the Ontario Government aren't your typical "close down the farm
next door because it smells" types. Ie: SRVS, FON, CWF etc.
It's interesting to note that West Carleton, where I live, imposes very
stringent restrictions on tree cutting. West Carleton is hardly
urban, and is still probably > 50% farmers.
Having a blanket exemption for farmers would probably be a mistake.
Because it would be trivial for the developers to exploit. Such a proposal
would have to be a bit more specific than just exempting farm land -
after all, a subdivision is merely thoroughly nuked farmland.
>The concerns about flood plains seem a trifle exaggerated -- at least
>in southern ontario, where we have had conservation authorities
>for 30 years, with control of the watershed. All the significant waterways
>around here are controlled with dams, tree plantings, controlled wetlands,
>etc. The arrival of Hurricane Hazel may have had something to do with
>the creation of these organizations in the '50s.
It most certainly did have something to do with it. MTRCA in particular
was started because of all of the flood damage caused by Hazel.
I was the one who brought CA's into the discussion, you can't use them
against me in this way: , you're the one campaigning for absolutely no
restrictions at all on "my own land", much (most) of the CA-subject
lands are privately held. There's a contradiction here.
>>> I see the same thing here as happened with house permits,
>>>which Lewis uses as a good example: in some areas, every improvement
>>>needs a permit if the cost is greater then some value. Well, what
>>>about your own labor -- its free, right, noooo, they say to count it
>>>as though you paid someone else! So you now need a permit to paint your house!
>>>And this is true all over Ontario.
>>You really don't have a clue do you? Routine maintenance (ie: painting)
>>doesn't require permits in any jurisdiction that I am aware of.
> It was true in '81, when I finally sold my cottage on Lake Simcoe.
>We had a very obnoxious building inspector who tried to force permits
>on all sorts of things -- applying the 'letter of the law'.
>Perhaps this has changed now -- I don't know.
I suspect it was entirely unique to your inspector. In many areas,
the permanent residents don't like seasonal people that much. This
is just one inspector having a personal vendetta. *Maintenance*
doesn't need permits - never has. New work does.
>>On the other hand, it's the permit system that:
> [stuff deleted] -- I appreciate the reasons for building permits.
>I just don't think they apply to tree cutting.
Not yet of course ;-) But it isn't hard to see that in many instances,
a permit for tree cutting is just as justified as building permits or
zoning restrictions.
>And cut the personal insults, they aren't convincing me.
Nor yours me.
>> - and near and dear to every politicians heart - a chance
>> to reassess the market value of your property so that
>> they can tax you on the improvements you made.
> Will they lower your taxes after you cut your trees?
>Raise them for planting new trees?
Yup, but the other way around: I am intending to replant a couple
of acres on my property and West Carleton *will* lower my taxes.
West Carleton will fine or revoke building/zoning permits when
too much tree cutting occurs during development.
This sort of thing is quite common nowadays.
It would be reasonable for municipalities to raise taxes with
tree cutting on large properties, because cleared land is easier
to get rezoned, and hence the property value is higher.
Bob Cano
|> This displays a lack of awareness of what's actually going on. SRVS,
|> next door because it smells" types. Ie: SRVS, FON, CWF etc.
|> It most certainly did have something to do with it. MTRCA in particular
Care to translate into english (ou francais)? Your article lost a lot
of it's meaning due to acronym diarrhoea.
--
Bob Cano Bell-Northern Research | When all else fails,
rcano@.bnr.ca P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C | read the instructions.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |
(613)763 4086 K1Y 4H7 |
Chris Lewis
>In article <35...@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>, cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>|> This displays a lack of awareness of what's actually going on. SRVS,
> ^^^^
>|> MAG, MOE, MNR etc. members that can be drawn upon, EYC grants etc,
> ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^
>|> next door because it smells" types. Ie: SRVS, FON, CWF etc.
> ^^^ ^^^
>|> It most certainly did have something to do with it. MTRCA in particular
> ^^^^^
>|> I was the one who brought CA's into the discussion, you can't use them
> ^^
>Care to translate into english (ou francais)? Your article lost a lot
>of it's meaning due to acronym diarrhoea.
Most of these had been spelled out more completely in previous articles in
this thread. If you jumped in the middle, I can understand the confusion.
Here they are all in one place:
SRVS: Save the Rouge Valley System - primarily a lobbying group to preserve
the Rouge Valley from developers, but does have interest in other
environmental issues. Eg: farmland preservation in the north-east
Metro (Scarborough and Markham) sector.
MAG: Ministry of Agriculture (Not the Attorney General ;-)
MOE: Ministry of the Environment
MNR: Ministry of Natural Resources
[I intentionally didn't say "provincial" or "federal", because I meant
both]
FON: Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Runs some really neat nature walks
and other activities (ie: you wanna stay up all night helping
with a Screech Owl capture/band/release project?). This is more
of a nature study group per-se, but has a very large membership
and has awesome people resources.
CWF: Canadian Wildlife Federation. This is the big umbrella group trying
to push a coordinated wilderness preservation plan on the Canadian
Government. The main goal is to have 12% of Canada (representing
as much of the existing diversity as possible) permanently protected
as provincial or federal parks. We're currently at 6% I believe.
(The 12% is a UN (United Nations ;-) recommendation)
EYC: Environmental Youth Corp (MOE sponsors various groups to hire
kids (usually on Unemployment Insurance) to do various
environmental-related projects. Ie: SRVS has been running
EYC projects for several years to do things like: preparing
nature trails, stream cleanup, Environment Week activities etc.
The idea being that these kids get some work experience,
some money, and something useful for the environment gets done.)
CA: Conservation Authority (responsible for watershed management). There
tends to be one of these per watershed. Eg: the Metro Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority's mandate goes from about the
Credit River to <something or other> creek (next major river
east of the Rouge) and up into the Oakridges Moraine.
Chris Retterath
is the requirement to get a permit to cut a tree on your own land ..
that is what the farmers around here don't want. The opinion is more
one of 'get out of our face' then anything else.
Conservation authorities around here (Grand River CA in particular)
just cut a pile of trees out of one lot for firewood in their camps.
They also plan to cut pulpwood from some of their lots. So they
do a bit of both cutting and planting, as they see fit. We should
have the same rights. The new law would force them to get permits, etc.
This all costs $$ -- for the permit system, and the applications for
permits, etc. (Check out how much a plumber charges you for a permit;
it means an idle person spinning wheels at city hall. And work that
can't proceed until the 'paperwork' is done. And other costs.)
BTW, I find CA's to be pretty schizoid about land management.
They encourage tree planting and steps to eliminate water pollution,
but they also rent their land out for years without trying to
control the erosion on it -- around here there is land that has
been in corn + soybeans for > 5 years, and is washing away very quickly.
Very few farmers would do that to their own land because it ruins it.
Their own people admit the lunacy, but have their hands tied -- they
need as much $$ as they can get right now.
>>We had a very obnoxious building inspector who tried to force permits
>>on all sorts of things -- applying the 'letter of the law'.
>>Perhaps this has changed now -- I don't know.
>
>I suspect it was entirely unique to your inspector. In many areas,
>the permanent residents don't like seasonal people that much. This
>is just one inspector having a personal vendetta. *Maintenance*
>doesn't need permits - never has. New work does.
Well, there you go -- you want a system which gives even more power
to 'unique' inspectors. Do you think a building inspector would know
anything about trees? BTW the current inspector is just as bad.
>It's interesting to note that West Carleton, where I live, imposes very
>stringent restrictions on tree cutting. West Carleton is hardly
>urban, and is still probably > 50% farmers.
Sorry, what's your point?
>Having a blanket exemption for farmers would probably be a mistake.
>Because it would be trivial for the developers to exploit. Such a proposal
>would have to be a bit more specific than just exempting farm land -
>after all, a subdivision is merely thoroughly nuked farmland.
^^^^^
By your definition southern ontario is 'nuked' -- it used to all be forest.
And your arguments all seem to be saying 'stop the developers', but
you want everyone else to get hit as well. Why not target the developers
directly? We already hit them with lot levies, why stop there? Of course,
every restriction we impose adds to the cost of the houses..
>>The concerns about flood plains seem a trifle exaggerated -- at least
>>in southern ontario, where we have had conservation authorities
>>for 30 years, with control of the watershed. All the significant waterways
>>around here are controlled with dams, tree plantings, controlled wetlands,
>>etc. The arrival of Hurricane Hazel may have had something to do with
>>the creation of these organizations in the '50s.
>
>It most certainly did have something to do with it. MTRCA in particular
>was started because of all of the flood damage caused by Hazel.
No kidding ... I forgot the smiley so you missed the humour
in my understatement..
>I was the one who brought CA's into the discussion, you can't use them
>against me in this way: , you're the one campaigning for absolutely no
>restrictions at all on "my own land", much (most) of the CA-subject
>lands are privately held. There's a contradiction here.
No, I don't want the permits. No contradiction. The watershed
problem has been solved already by the CAs. That was your example, remember,
about cutting causing flooding? CA land is private, and that's fine; they
should be able to cut + plant as they see fit.
Chris Retterath
Chris Lewis
|The argument is not environmental groups versus farmers... the problem
|is the requirement to get a permit to cut a tree on your own land ..
|that is what the farmers around here don't want. The opinion is more
|one of 'get out of our face' then anything else.
You suggested that the proponents of the law were merely "urbanites trying
to keep everything a park". I pointed out that the only effective
lobbying would be by environmental groups which could not be typified
in that way. And that, indeed, many of the more active members of
such groups *are* farmers. It sounds more like the opinion is
from people who haven't the slightest idea of what's really going on.
Farmers are always griping about something.
CA's are indeed a bit schizoid. My sister-in-law works for one.
But they *aren't* conservation groups, and are irrelevant anyways.
|>>We had a very obnoxious building inspector who tried to force permits
|>>on all sorts of things -- applying the 'letter of the law'.
|>>Perhaps this has changed now -- I don't know.
|>I suspect it was entirely unique to your inspector. In many areas,
|>the permanent residents don't like seasonal people that much. This
|>is just one inspector having a personal vendetta. *Maintenance*
|>doesn't need permits - never has. New work does.
|Well, there you go -- you want a system which gives even more power
|to 'unique' inspectors. Do you think a building inspector would know
|anything about trees? BTW the current inspector is just as bad.
What makes you think that any such decisions would be made by "building
inspectors". Each municipality will probably try to follow a set of
guidelines suggested by the province.
|>It's interesting to note that West Carleton, where I live, imposes very
|>stringent restrictions on tree cutting. West Carleton is hardly
|>urban, and is still probably > 50% farmers.
| Sorry, what's your point?
That even farmers want such rules. In point of fact, the *mayor* of
West Carleton is a farmer (and DVM) - 6th generation on his land.
He's also taken advantage of the tax breaks for reforestation.
[Which predate his tenure as mayor or councillor]
|>Having a blanket exemption for farmers would probably be a mistake.
|>Because it would be trivial for the developers to exploit. Such a proposal
|>would have to be a bit more specific than just exempting farm land -
|>after all, a subdivision is merely thoroughly nuked farmland.
| ^^^^^
|By your definition southern ontario is 'nuked' -- it used to all be forest.
If you remember earlier on in this thread, you'd realize that by
"nuked" I don't just mean logging 100 years ago. I'm refering
to scrapeing the land down 15 feet and selling the topsoil resulting
in a landscape that consists of disturbed hardpan and construction
debris, I'm referring to turning every stream into either a open sewer
or a underground pipe. This is how developers operate in the
Toronto area (see Richmond Hill for prime examples).
|And your arguments all seem to be saying 'stop the developers', but
|you want everyone else to get hit as well. Why not target the developers
|directly? We already hit them with lot levies, why stop there? Of course,
|every restriction we impose adds to the cost of the houses..
Taxing them merely licenses the destruction. And how, precisely, can
*any* legislation aimed directly at the developer's ownership of the
land prevent the farmer turning the land into a wasteland as an
under-the-table precondition of selling it to the developer?
["All you have to do is clearcut the whole place, you're a farmer,
they can't touch you. Soon as it's done, we'll buy the place"]
|>I was the one who brought CA's into the discussion, you can't use them
|>against me in this way: , you're the one campaigning for absolutely no
|>restrictions at all on "my own land", much (most) of the CA-subject
|>lands are privately held. There's a contradiction here.
| No, I don't want the permits. No contradiction. The watershed
|problem has been solved already by the CAs. That was your example, remember,
|about cutting causing flooding? CA land is private, and that's fine; they
|should be able to cut + plant as they see fit.
Pardon me? Much of the CA-subject lands are privately held, *not* by CAs.
Ie: CAs have jurisdictions over land that *they* don't own. That's
where the contradiction is.
Peter Renzland
Hi Chris,
>MAG: Ministry of Agriculture (Not the Attorney General ;-)
>MOE: Ministry of the Environment
>MNR: Ministry of Natural Resources
>[I intentionally didn't say "provincial" or "federal", because I meant
>both]
So, I will speak for "provincial" only. It may interest you to know that
the ministry identifiers used in the (ontario government) telephone
directory are AGF, ENV, and MNR, resp. -- see page 699 of current one.
Other examples are EDU and ENG.
While these are not "approved designations", they are the only ones in wide
use. In particular, they are the official designations in the internet
domain, hence, you could address mail to me as "renz...@moh.gov.on.ca".
This puts the ontario government in fairly good shape as far as internet
DNS is concerned -- in the federal government, there is no co-ordinated
domain at all, and individual departments have their own 2nd level domain,
such as .doc.ca and .hwc.ca and even .goc.ca (goc=government of canada).
Just in case you were wondering ... :-)
(I didn't say I wouldn't speak "about" federal, just not "for".)
--
Peter Renzland <renz...@gov.on.ca> Ontario Ministry of Health +1 416 327-7741