The brief in question does not break down the Field Crop category further, but a more in-depth study (this time of Chilliwack) by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands explains this more clearly.
Yes, this one does break it down more clearly (especially for the municipality of Chilliwack, to which you were referring originally) but it still shows that the cattle farms (milk and beef combined) account for 317 of the 828 farms reporting (40%) while dairy cows account for only 156 farms (20%). Now, while I understand that the farmers you are referring to that are growing "feed" for the cattle should also be included in the numbers of farms with field crops, I would suggest that while they
are included in those, if they had cows on their farms, they are still only one of the 317 farms with cattle. That's all.
I can't comment on other parts of your argument, but I think maybe you're confusing the two levels of government. SARA is a federal law and the BC Liberals have nothing to do with it. BC has no endangered species laws--how's that for stillborn?
Yes, your are right. I apologize to the Liberals for that jab, I just couldn't resist, it just sounded like something they would do. It still begs the question, when both provincial and federal laws, including SARA itself, point to the right of the land owner to be compensated when land is expropriated for the "public good," why is the talk now of not compensating the land owners? I am particularly puzzled since the Salish Sucker Recovery Assessment itself suggests compensation for landowners that is modeled after the US's Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program:
Some of the riparian habitat is already occupied by permanent structures (buildings, roads,
trails, railways, dikes). Portions of the remainder of actively farmed riparian land could, however,
be removed from production. A model is the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP), a land retirement program administered by the United States Department of
Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. The CREP program, which is available in all states, helps
producers protect and restore wildlife habitat while conserving ground and surface water.
Participation is voluntary; land enrolled in CREP is removed from production and grazing for a
contracted period of 10-15 years. Landowners are paid an annual rent and reimbursed for buffer
planting and maintenance.
In Canada, similar objectives can be achieved through land trusts. While most trusts work by
acquiring land (hence removing the risk of development that could affect biodiversity and
ecosystem processes), some operate in a way analogous to CREP.
(quoted in RECOVERY POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SALISH SUCKER (CATOSTOMUS SP.) IN CANADA, 11)
Was this removed from the Actually draft Recovery Plan? Anyone else notice that the recovery plan can no longer be accessed?
Author
Topic: The Salish Sucker (Read 21856 times)