Capital Regional District Compensation to Sheep Producer Not Right

     In February this year, a wolf dog running at-large on Salt Spring Island killed sixteen sheep over two nights on Ted Akerman’s farm. Ted spent a cold night in his truck watching his flock, and at daybreak sighted the wolf-dog and killed it with his shotgun. The dog had no identification, and no owner came forward. Ted filed for compensation with the CRD, and three months later the CRD Board voted to compensate Ted with $750 – less than $47 per sheep. To add insult to injury, Ted found this out by reading his local paper on the ferry. A few weeks later he received his cheque in the mail.

     The CRD bylaw states that the compensation shall be the “lesser of (a) 75% of the decrease in the market value of the animal as a result of its death or injury, or (b) $750 dollars”. The emphasis on “the” and “it” indicates the singular, that is, a single compensation for each animal. The ceiling is based on the fact that some producers may have sheep that are registered purebreds that may fetch a higher price as premium breeding stock. Some purebred registered sheep are worth thousands of dollars, thus the cap per animal of $750. As a benchmark, the federal government’s valuation maximum for sheep is $300 for unregistered sheep and $1,200 for purebred registered sheep. The current market value of lambs is about $200, so compensation by the bylaw formula should have been $2,400 – certainly not $750.

     As a representative of the BC Sheep Federation (BCSF), I faxed and emailed the CRD to inform them of their misinterpretation of the bylaw. I received an email reply from Ken Hancock, Southern Gulf Islands CRD Director, stated that “the interpretation (since the bylaw’s inception) is that the intent of the bylaw is to set a maximum of $750 per incident as opposed to a maximum of $750 per animal”. This was backed up in a letter by Dan Brown of CRD Bylaw Services, who added that local government does not have to compensate livestock owners, citing the provincial statute that says a local government “may” compensate.

     It is amazing to think that anyone would assume that the $750 limit is regardless of the number of animals killed or injured.   According to legal opinion obtained by the BCSF, the CRD is not correct in its interpretation that the total compensation limit is $750. There is also a precedent; in 2003, another Salt Spring sheep producer received $810 for 8 sheep killed by a dog. Garth Hendren, Salt Spring Island CRD Director, was sympathetic to the plight of the Akermans and agreed to have the CRD lawyer review the bylaw, hopefully resulting in a review of the Akerman’s case. Given that back in the 1970’s Salt Spring had over 200 sheep killed by dogs in a single year, the few livestock owners that apply for compensation now are a fraction of what the province used to compensate for.

.     In 1875 in BC, the Livestock Protection Act was passed to help prevent dogs from becoming a nuisance to livestock. The Act replaced the Sheep Protection Act and allowed for livestock owners to shoot dogs that were chasing or attacking their livestock, and to be compensated for losses due to dog attacks. All dogs were required to be licenced and the fees were placed into a consolidated fund to be used for compensation to livestock owners. People with dogs that were either shot or caught attacking livestock were required to pay compensation into the fund, which would go toward compensation of the livestock owner. The Act was repealed in 2003, as it was believed that it was redundant with many municipalities and regional districts that were already licencing dogs and should be responsible for the control of dogs in their jurisdiction, and also responsible for the compensation of livestock owners through the Local Government Act. The portion of the Act that allowed farmers to shoot the dogs attacking their stock was placed into the Livestock Act.

     This has not worked out very well for some livestock farmers and ranchers. Some jurisdictions do not licence dogs, compensate poorly or do not compensate at all. Bowen Island, the location of wolf-dog attacks that were in the news across Canada this year, is one such municipality. When the wolf-dog was finally shot, it did not have a licence since licences are not required there. Bowen Island also does not compensate livestock owners for dog attacks or kills, and does not allow the discharge of firearms.

     The CRD only receives one or two claims per year and budgets approximately $2,000 annually for compensation. In 2007 there were over 7,000 dogs in the CRD and over $128,000 in licence fees collected. In a 2008 staff report dog numbers had increased to almost 11,000 and there were three claims for compensation in four years for only $925 paid out in compensation to livestock owners. There are more dog attacks that occur, but if the dog has a licence the compensation comes directly from the dog owner.

Regional and local governments should understand that one of their roles is to control the dog population through licencing, and with that licence fee there should be fair compensation. The local government that does a good job of educating, licencing and controlling stray dogs will not have to pay out much in compensation. And they certainly should ensure that the compensation is fair to the livestock producer. When local governments talk about supporting local agriculture, they should understand that controlling stray dogs is one way they can help.

     The BCSF has initiated a scan of dog bylaws and a preliminary report will be presented at the AGM of the BCSF in Duncan on October 15^th. All sheep producers are welcome to attend.

PIG WARS

Pig War boundaries - from Wikepedia

It’s not that unusual for livestock to escape their enclosures whether it is for the greener grass on the other side of the fence, or for males to seek female company. But 150 years ago a roaming pig that broke into a garden nearly caused a war between nations, and gave the Gulf Islands a bit of colourful history.

In 1846 the Oregon Treaty divided the unclaimed land in this region between the United States and Britain. Everything below the 49^th parallel was to be American, and everything above it British Canada. Vancouver Island, which dips below the 49^th parallel, was kept intact and separate from the American mainland by the Treaty stating that the border would be along the middle of the channel. However, the wording created uncertainty because there are actually two channels – Haro and Rosario - separating Vancouver Island from the U.S., each running on either side of San Juan Island before merging into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. As a result, both nations claimed San Juan Island.

In the early 1850’s, the Hudson’s Bay Company brought 1,369 sheep, seed for crops and farm animals including Berkshire pigs to establish a farm on San Juan Island. The sheep thrived there and their numbers swelled to over 4,000. The pigs also found plentiful food, occasionally in the gardens of the American settlers who also came to the island to establish farms. It wasn’t long before one particular British pig was shot and killed for rooting up and eating an American settler’s potatoes. The pig belonged to the Hudson’s Bay Company, who called for the arrest of the American who killed the pig. The American settlers called for military protection by the US military, and the HBC called for the British to come and protect their interests. The American troops set up camp, and the governor of British Columbia, James Douglas, ordered three war ships to San Juan Island to scare them away with orders to not shoot unless shot at. Even though much smaller in numbers, the American force would not budge.

American President James Buchanan was shocked that an international crisis had erupted over a dead pig. He sent his Commanding General to negotiate, and both nations agreed to joint military occupation. Each established a small camp at either end of the island while the issue of sovereignty was determined. True to form, the British camp was lovely, complete with formal gardens and tea parties. During the next twelve years, the British and American military camps behaved in a very civilized manner, each visiting each other’s camps to celebrate their respective national holidays. They enjoyed various sports competitions. It has been said that the biggest threat to peace on the island during that time period was the large amounts of alcohol available.

The standoff was concluded twelve years later, when the issue was referred to and resolved by Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany. He formed a commission that decided in favour of the United States, and San Juan Island is now exclusively American.

The Pig War is commemorated in San Juan Island National Historical Park. Today the Union Jack still flies above the "British Camp", being raised and lowered daily by park rangers, making it one of the very few places without diplomatic status where US government employees regularly hoist the flag of another country. Each year the event is celebrated with re-enactments in full costume and picnics at the British Camp and American Camp site.

In recent years on Pender Island a “Pig War” was started when a previous local Trust committee was going to ban pigs from small acreages. The Farmer’s Institute and supporters fought back and won the right to have pigs. It is rumored – in true Gulf Island form – that the owner of the killed San Juan Island pig fled to Pender Island, and his descendants live there today. In any case, pig farming is viewed by many as either an enjoyable livestock enterprise or a messy, smelly form of farming better left in someone else’s back yard.

Local food needs local support

What can a local government do to really support local food and agriculture? Start with understanding the challenges that face farmers and the changing times we are living in. Examine policy changes from the farmer’s perspective, because unforeseen consequences can result that have a negative effect on farming. There needs to be more done than just write reports and give lip service to local food.

Case in point – urban agriculture. Many people understand the benefits of having food grown close by – fresher, less fuel to transport, less impact by global events that could affect distribution, support of local economy. Early community gardens were called Railway Gardens, started by the CPR. Victory Gardens sprung up in wartime to help feed people in the cities. Some people have quickly grasped the benefits of urban agriculture, taking unused lots or yards and transforming them into mini farms, to sell produce at farmers markets to people in the community. For the past thirty or so years these markets have been growing in size and number, and more of the food is coming from the cities themselves. Pretty neat, right?

Not if you live in the District of Lantzville on Vancouver Island. The residential zoning bylaw in Lantzville does not allow for commercial or agricultural activities, and this summer the District was threatening legal action against Dirk Becker since he had not applied for a temporary use permit. This generated a fair bit of controversy, and some stories of other jurisdictions with similar situations have come to light as a result of the press Dirk has received.   Dirk and his partner Nicole Shaw have taken a formerly bleak 2.5 acre lot and transformed it into a thriving garden. Unfortunately, not everyone that lives near Dirk appreciate his efforts.

What is particularly ironic is that the Regional District of Nanaimo, which includes the District of Lantzville, recently hosted the Canadian Institute of Planners AGM, which included a keynote speaker by an agrologist and supporter of urban agriculture, Wendy Holm. Wendy has taken farmers to Cuba for years to see how Cuba adopted organic urban agriculture out of necessity. She was sharing her views and experiences with planners from all over Canada, encouraging them to adopt farmer and home-grower friendly bylaws in their cities. Not only that, a team of Nanaimo planners hosted a tour of local farms in the Nanaimo area for the AGM.

As many people move towards resiliency, others like things to stay the way they are and are more concerned about maintaining property values based on appearances. The council of Lantzville isn't the only one faced with this dilemma. A similar situation has happened in the town of Oak Park, Michigan this summer. Oak Park threatened homeowner Julie Bass for planting raised gardens in her front yard. If convicted, she could have spent 93 days in jail but the city backed out when the case got widespread attention. This situation reminded me of my favourite British situation comedy from the 70's, the Good Life, which took a humorous look at a couple who decided to grow their own food on their suburban lot, except the Lantzville and Oak Park situations aren't funny for the property owners involved.

Values are shifting ever so slowly, and like many communities where people are on different parts of the spectrum, there can be conflicts. And there is a difference between urban agriculture, where unused lots or lawns are converted into gardens to grow food – and agricultural urbanism, a concept taken up by urban planners and developers to often justify the development of farmland by offering “urban farms” within a development. I am suspicious of the real motives of these projects, which seem to be just another version of developing farmland.

It is predicted that 65% of the global population will live in cities by 2050. The fresher the fruit or vegetable is, the more nutritious it is. Growing it yourself is the freshest and healthiest way to go. I have always felt that everyone should be able to grow their own food if they are able to. Bylaws should reflect that. Community gardens should be available for those who lack a yard to grow a garden, and ways to distribute fresh produce with others should be encouraged also.

Bullfrog Battles

The Pender Island Farmers Institute and the Pender Island Conservancy are working together to initiate an American Bullfrog education campaign and eradication project on Pender Island with the assistance of Stan Orchard, a conservation biologist who’s company works almost exclusively on bullfrog eradication and control efforts in the greater Victoria area. Stan and his assistant have made a preliminary visit over two nights to survey and remove bullfrogs from some Pender Island ponds. In an interview with The Islands Independent, Stan Orchard said Pender Island is a good candidate for eradication which he estimates could take about five years. He believes it is possible because of the surrounding salt water so reintroduction could only occur if humans brought them back or if all sources are not found. It is hard to estimate the total cost of such a project, based on the experiences of other communities in the Victoria area. This could actually cost much more than initially estimated, since the bullfrogs have spread over a large area of North Pender since their introduction into a residential pond about fifteen years ago.

Stan Orchard and assistant catching a bullfrog on Pender

The American bullfrog is native to the east coast of the US, Ontario and Quebec and harvesting is restricted in some states because they taste so good. They are a common and popular part of the landscape in their home range. Bullfrogs came to British Columbia as a food source back in the early 1930's. After frog farm ventures failed, many bullfrogs were released. In later years bullfrogs were also part of classroom projects and could be sourced through garden supply outlets for residential ponds and water features. They were brought to some Gulf Islands, notably Lasqueti in the1930's for farming, to Salt Spring and more recently to Pender Island for a residential pond in the mid 1990's.

There are concerns that native amphibians are being reduced in numbers by the giant frogs, either through predation, competition for habitat, or by the introduction of disease. The large adults will eat anything that crosses their path and fits into their mouth, like birds, rodents, ducklings. This concern led to a research project studying the effect of the American Bullfrog on the native Pacific tree frog and the red-legged frog in Victoria area ponds by Dr. Purnima Govindarajulu while she was a PhD candidate at the University of Victoria. Through her research, she found that although American bullfrogs have been in the Victoria area since the 1930s-1960s, they exploded in numbers since the 1990's because of changes to the landscape that favoured the bullfrog. This included the alterations of wetlands to permanent ponds by agriculture and also by beavers, and the popularity of residential ponds, coupled with the loss of habitat for our native species. She recognizes that most eradication efforts after bullfrog introduction have not been successful, so she recommends education and prevention, and the enhancement of habitat for native frogs as a long term plan.

Dr. Govindarajulu  is now an amphibian/reptile/small mammal specialist with the Terrestrial Conservation Science Section of the BC Ministry of Environment. Through interviews with other amphibian specialists worldwide, she has reinforced her view that large scale eradication is very long term, very expensive and labour intensive. The scientific literature supports this, especially if bullfrogs are established and have spread in an area. In an interview with The Islands Independent, Dr. Govindarajulu emphasized that she is not against bullfrog control and says that communities and individuals need to determine what they are trying to achieve, whether it be to improve the conservation benefits for native species or the reduction of noise. Early removal of adult bullfrogs in April and May will certainly help in controlling noise and reducing the adult predation on native frogs, but there is also a balancing act with the removal of the primary predator of the juvenile bullfrogs

Work in BC is ongoing, with projects in the Okanagan and the Fraser Valley, looking at both eradication programs and range extension. Work on habitat restoration and long term landscape level projects are needed. It is known that if ponds dry up, bullfrogs can’t breed, so Dr. Govindarajulu recommends the construction and enhancement of temporary ponds as refuge habitat for native species. She recommends that property owners should take a site specific approach to control bullfrogs while enhancing native frogs. This could include draining ponds at the end of summer, increase plantings around ponds, fencing off irrigation ponds, as some examples. We need to also recognize that there are some predators that can help with bullfrog control, notably dragonflies, mink, otter, raccoons, herons, kingfishers and bullfrogs themselves. Bullfrogs are often described as tasting like chicken, which could make them a nutritious target for the racoons and mink in the Gulf Island, notorious lovers of all things chicken flavoured.

Beavers may be responsible for range expansion and can create habitat for both bullfrogs and native amphibians. In the Merville area, bullfrogs are in the ponds but with the adjacent intact forests, the native frogs have also persisted. In such a dry climate as the Gulf Islands many people have dug ponds - for livestock watering and irrigation, for water collection during the wetter winter months, accidentally creating an ideal habitat for the bullfrogs.

Dr. Govindrajulu has said that it is best to prevent them coming at all – as a warning to those Gulf Islands who do not yet have bullfrogs - be vigilant. If bullfrogs are introduced do something right away to get rid of them. We waited too long on Pender to make it an easy process. Now there are those who want to eradicate, and others who think we need to pick our battles carefully and plan our strategies accordingly. In a perfect world with unlimited volunteer energy and time and unlimited funds, it would still be a challenge to eradicate the island of bullfrogs. They have a head start on us. They are made to invade - their adaptation to their environment, their size, their fecundity with over 20,000 eggs laid at a time, their lack of selective taste buds with a huge mouth to eat almost anything, and their ability to move up to 5 km per year by travelling ditches and roadways gives them a big advantage. Some places outside their normal range lack enough predators to control them, and not many people in our neck of the woods have a taste for them. There is a chance with education to prevent the spread or learn how to manage frog habitats to favour the native frogs. At the very least, islands that do not have them can learn from this example.

PI09: American Meat

Western Producer - A delicate balance at Grasslands National Park

Western Producer - A delicate balance at Grasslands National Park

By Karen Briere
August 4, 2011

Grass. That’s what pioneering ranchers came to southern Saskatchewan to get. That’s what Parks Canada wanted to preserve when it created a national park in the area in the 1980s. Natural prairieland of mixed grass was disappearing before the plow and conversions to tame pastures, but farming the park created friction with ranchers. Ironically, the park’s desire to protect native grasses and plants allowed non-native species to thrive. Regina reporter Karen Briere describes how Parks Canada and ranchers are now working together to create the grazing environment needed to revive the native prairie.
VAL MARIE, Sask. — Cattle are grazing in Grasslands National Park.
That’s a sight some people thought they’d never see after the park began buying land in the 1980s and grazing was viewed as a threat to preserving the mixed short-grass prairie.
The view was among several that put ranchers and park officials at odds until recently.
Work is now underway to remedy that relationship as well as the condition of park land.
“I do personally take accountability for the park missteps of the past and I want to go forward in a better manner,” said park superintendent Katherine Patterson, who has been on the job for two years.
Parks Canada had its own ideas in 1988 about what was good for the grass, and that didn’t include grazing.
Ranchers argued that grazing and disturbance were critical to healthy native prairie. The bison had done it for centuries and cattle more recently.
But for 20 years much of the grass lay idle, grazed only occasionally by wandering wildlife.
Tame species such as crested wheatgrass took over native stands as well as areas in the park that had been cultivated by its previous owners.
“This land has always been grazed by large grazers,” said Patterson. “Antelope and deer nibbling are not enough.”
In 2005, the park was given an exemption from the regulation that prohibited grazing in national parks.
The arrival of bison later that year opened the door to a plan that could eventually see more than 60 percent of the 920 sq. kilometre park grazed.
Bison were preferred over cattle because they were native to the area, said park resource conservation manager Adrian Sturch.
The original 71 head of Plains bison brought from Elk Island National Park have now grown to 240 and graze 44,000 acres in the western part of Grassland’s two blocks.
A long-term grazing experiment began in 2008 on 4,500 acres in the park’s east block and small herds were introduced in the west block.
Darcy Henderson, protected areas ecologist with Environment Canada in Saskatoon, said native prairie is healthiest when grazing occurs.
Some birds and animals find it difficult to thrive in dense grass. Species at risk such as the burrowing owl, mountain plover and McCown’s longspur need some short-cropped grass that grazers create.
Wildflowers also do better under grazing, and birds such as Sprague’s pipit, which prefer dense grass litter, do better when that litter is from native grass rather than alien species.
“For many reasons, the consequences of not grazing large areas of native prairie grasslands for long periods of time are generally negative consequences where the goal is to maintain a diversity of native plants and animals,” said Henderson.
Ranchers Glenn and Greg Kornfeld could tell you that.
They ranch along the park boundary and have watched as the grass went unused and crested wheatgrass took over.
“It’s been frustrating,” said Glenn Kornfeld.
However, they have grazed cattle in the park for the last four years and think things are changing for the better.
“Thirty years ago the government got hold of it and figured they were saving the grassland from the ranchers,” said Greg Kornfeld.
“The park is now realizing they’ve done more harm than good.”
Some of that change of heart stems from employing local ranchers and listening to what long-time residents have to say.
Doug Gillespie was opposed to the park’s creation but was one of the first to sell his land. He also sat on the local advisory committee to the park in the 1980s.
He said park officials would not listen to ranchers who had first-hand knowledge of the grass.
“Not grazing doesn’t work for native grass,” he said. “They had no idea what they were dealing with.”
The grass should be grazed, he said, at least to mitigate fire risk.
However, he acknowledged that things are changing.
“Experience is a great teacher,” Gillespie said. “They’ve gained it and they’re headed in the right direction.”
Sturch said the park service now wants grazing for ecological purposes to increase diversity of species. That may differ from ranchers’ commercial motivation but will achieve the same result — healthy native grass.
Grazing is one tool to restore the ecological integrity of prairie hurt by previous policies. Herbicides and prescribed burning are also being used to control invasive plants and litter buildup.
Sturch said the park service is becoming more flexible in its thinking and appreciates advice from people such as the Kornfeld brothers, who say they are more comfortable now that some of their ranching knowledge is being used.
Ranchers will never be able to rely on park land as a grazing source because the park does not have a mandate to commercially graze, but the recent willingness to work together can benefit everyone and everything living on the grass.
“Don’t let what happened in the last 20 years happen in the next 20,” said Jody Larson, a local rancher who also works as a program policy officer at the park.

Ottawa packs in provincial slaughterhouse inspections | News | National Post

Ottawa packs in provincial slaughterhouse inspections | News | National Post