Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fish or cut bait.]

They serve no commercial, recreational, social importance to us anyway.

And what commercial, recreational, social importance do you serve?
To me the sucker is just an animal that has no direct importance to me or my way of life.
However, like frogs, are an important part of the ecosystem (an ecosystem that we all inhabit).
I hate mosquitoes but understand that they are an important food source for those further up the chain which benefits those even further up.

Just because you have aposable thumbs and have the ability to affect your surroundings by your actions doesn't mean you should leave a swathe of detrimental decisions in your wake.

A lot of decisions have been made without looking at the future consequences and unfortunately for some those desicions can come back to haunt.
A lot of past decisions have had an effect on the areas a lot of us presently fish or would love to fish in the future.

Some reparations SUCK, but......

Would I be happy if the Govt. came by and appropriated property?
HELL NO! It happened to my uncle (not an environmental issue) and I know the headaches and BS it entails.

[Rodney]

So what your saying is we aren't entitled to our own opinions, sorry I dont see somethings through your eyes Rod.

No, you're entitled to your opinions, otherwise I'd be deleting a lot of posts everyday.

I'm just also expressing my opinions.

[BladeKid]

His name is BASSonater.... says it all right there...   

Dinky salish sucker... Nice... They just happened to be found in a few headwaters on the planet, are genetically distinct to other minnow species due to being isolated since the Pleistocene glaciation.

Sure, lets rid them. They serve no commercial, recreational, social importance to us anyway.

Another species to add to the list of evil species for culling, as they interfere with human interest.

And I was going to reply...untill i read this. Nailed it.

[penn]

 Perhaps some of you should attend a meeting of this issue with all the farmers present and say this stuff to their faces . As usual lots of opinions based on no facts .
 A lot of the habitat of these fish is actually drainage ditches dug by these farmers . And there would be no habitat there if it was not for the fact these farmers maintain these drainage ditches . They maintain these ditches and have to fight FOC to do that. They do require regular dredging or they will completely clog up with grass , and they get harassed while doing it.
I used to live on a small acreage with a small creek going through it. That creek always grew over with high swamp grass to the point of being completely clogged. I raked out a small channel by hand and that is exactly where small fish would move in. If I didn't do it , it was good-bye habitat for them . This is the same thing as what farmers are doing on a larger scale .

[salmonsturgeontrout]

I see the same from you penn

As usual lots of opinions based on no facts .

I see no facts 

I have worked with the person that was in charge of studying the Salish Sucker and I would trust his opinion and facts on his background alone since he specializes in these small fish ( nooksack dace, Salish sucker etc). The areas in question in regards to the Salish sucker are in fact creeks. If these drainage ditches you speak of drain into the creek then it is part of the ecosystem, and chances are they weren't dug legally to begin with. How many more creeks , feeder streams were destroyed by farmers?They do not have to fight foc to maintain them, farmers just don't like the fact they only have a certain time frame to apply and get the job done. One cant go dig out a ditch whenever they want and it needs to be performed in a matter that is safe for the workers and the environment  . This is just a part of farmers doing business, if they don't like it, sell the land, id be happy to have a creek in my property and grow some veggies or steak .

As for farmers passing on the savings, take a look what farmers are paid for their harvest, then tell me if they should pass on the savings.

I know a lot of farmers, my uncle is one, and he makes and saves plenty being a farmer, so I am telling you they should pass on the savings. It all depends on the area and what you are raising or growing. It's a business , they succeed and fail just like the rest of the businesses out there.

[salmonsturgeontrout]

Some reading for those interested:
The Biology and Management of the Salish Sucker and Nooksack Dace  http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/fr09pearson.pdf

[Sandman]

This is a complicated tissue that cannot be overly simplified.  

Do we need riparian zones along our streams and "ditches"?  Absolutely.  These zones protect the streams from many adverse effects of human development, and no where is this more important than near farms.  Contamination by pesticides and fertilizers are among the most common pollutants in our freshwater systems (oil, sewage and detergent being the other 3 of the top 5 pollutants).  Riparian zones set up a buffer that can naturally filter many of these pollutants out of the surface runoff before they reach the streams.  These benefit more than just the sucker.  It benefits every organism in the freshwater ecosystem, including our precious salmonids.

"Why does a farmer care about the value that developers put on his "farming" land? If he's only interested in farming a lower assessed value is actually a benefit since he pays less property tax."

Well, I can see a couple of reasons why farmers may be worried about the fact that the property they purchased 10 years ago for $1.4 million is now worth only $350 000 because two creeks on the property are now going to have 30 m on either side set back.  Firstly, the obvious one is they just lost all their investment in the property (investment that they may have been counting on as their retirement fund).  Secondly, farmers often rely on the value of the land to borrow money, just as you do with your house, this will seriously affect their ability to borrow against the value of their property since it is no longer worth as much.  Finally, there is the land use itself.  Since farmers are no longer able to cultivate right up to the creek, they lose huge amounts of cultivatable land, thereby reducing the crop yield and therefore their income generating potential.   This is the same as the government imposing a massive tax income tax hike or demanding that you take a massive pay cut.  It is going to affect their take home income.  We will, therefore, undoubtedly see an equally startling increase in local food prices as they raise prices to compensate for the reduction in crop yield.

While we need to protect our environment, should we expect a few landowners (farmers) to shoulder the cost of protecting our environment?  

The issue is not:

Should we protect the sucker (and the streams that house them, and thousands of other species)?

but:

Should we expropriate the land without compensating the landowner?  

I am suggesting we need the latter.  Whether you feel the sucker is worth it or not, the riparian zones ARE worth it and so we need to spread the cost of protecting the environment among all of us who are going to benefit from a world that doesn't sacrifice biodiversity and long term sustainability for short term economic prosperity.

[Bassonator]

Thank you Sandman, that I could live with, as long as the farmer is truly compensated. I guess the point I was really trying to make is where do we as a human race draw the line regarding the enviroment, dont get me wrong, I belong to sacredsalmon, and a few others, but not now but maybe years down the road there will be tough decisions to be made.

[salmonsturgeontrout]

I do agree with most of what you said Sandman, however; I do not agree with spreading out the cost. Like investing and business, some succeed , some fail. If a store goes up beside my house, devaluing the property, should everyone pay for my loss? if I buy land to develop and it has creeks, devaluing the land, should everyone have to pay for my loss? This thought process makes no sense to me as it could set a statement to other similar situations. If someone buys mutual funds and looses money, should everyone pay, after all, it is everyone's benefit if after retirement everyone has a steady income putting money into the country (the more that comes in, the more comes back to us in services, rebates etc). Not to sound callous but I see it as a part of doing business and investing, sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, but you can't expect everyone to pay for your gambles and loses, especially if everyone doesn't share in their winnings (profits)

[alwaysfishn]

Thank you Sandman, that I could live with, as long as the farmer is truly compensated.

It's ridiculous to ask that my tax dollars be used to compensate anybody for being a good steward of the environment. I think it's a lot of talk with little substance. Even if there was a set back of 30 meters (that's apparently not fact) the farmer wouldn't be prevented from using this area to grow hay. What it would prevent a farmer from doing is working the land to the edge of the ditch or building at the edge of a ditch. As such the impact on the farms value would likely be minimal.

As far as the article quoting John Les....  isn't he the guy that bought some farmland from an old couple for peanuts(because they tried and weren't able to remove it from the ALR) and then through his connections in local and provincial government was able to magically have it removed from the ALR? As I understand he has been cleared of all conflict of interest allegations.    Maybe the new rules may endanger another one of his real estate projects. 

[marmot]

Bassonator,

you said it yourself in a previous post... "where does it end".

IF you have policies in place that ignore the most important of environmental issues (ie, extinction of a species) where do you think it will end?  The decision to adjust riparian ownership is one that reflects the most basic of environmental considerations. 

[chris gadsden]

It's ridiculous to ask that my tax dollars be used to compensate anybody for being a good steward of the environment. I think it's a lot of talk with little substance. Even if there was a set back of 30 meters (that's apparently not fact) the farmer wouldn't be prevented from using this area to grow hay. What it would prevent a farmer from doing is working the land to the edge of the ditch or building at the edge of a ditch. As such the impact on the farms value would likely be minimal.

As far as the article quoting John Les....  isn't he the guy that bought some farmland from an old couple for peanuts(because they tried and weren't able to remove it from the ALR) and then through his connections in local and provincial government was able to magically have it removed from the ALR? As I understand he has been cleared of all conflict of interest allegations.    Maybe the new rules may endanger another one of his real estate projects. 

Yep, he once said he would be prepared go to jail if people continued to be impacted by unreasonable set backs on water courses.

[Sandman]

if I buy land to develop and it has creeks, devaluing the land, should everyone have to pay for my loss? This thought process makes no sense to me as it could set a statement to other similar situations. If someone buys mutual funds and looses money, should everyone pay, after all, it is everyone's benefit if after retirement everyone has a steady income putting money into the country (the more that comes in, the more comes back to us in services, rebates etc). Not to sound callous but I see it as a part of doing business and investing, sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, but you can't expect everyone to pay for your gambles and loses, especially if everyone doesn't share in their winnings (profits)

 You are presenting a "slippery slope fallacy".   Just because we compensate a landowner for the land being expropriated, does not mean we need to compensate anyone who loses money on an investment.  However, if the loss of value of your mutual funds was due to the government passing a law that directly devalued them, then I would say yes you have a case for compensation.  When you say "if I buy land and it has creeks, devaluing the land..." you need to recognize that the land had creeks when you bought it, but when you bought it you were allowed by law to use that land.  Then the government changed the rules and now you are told you cannot use that land, and THAT was what devalued the land.  If the government is going to change the rules then it needs to be prepared to compensate those affected (perhaps with tax breaks for being such good "stewards").

Even if there was a set back of 30 meters (that's apparently not fact) the farmer wouldn't be prevented from using this area to grow hay. What it would prevent a farmer from doing is working the land to the edge of the ditch or building at the edge of a ditch. As such the impact on the farms value would likely be minimal.

I am sorry, I had thought that the 30m set back WOULD prevent the farmer from working that land up to 30 m from the creek.  A small farm of say 500m by 500m that is divided by a creek would have 30000 mē (60m x 500m or more) of the 250000 mē removed from production (a cut of about 8%).  This is not insignificant.  Consider taking an 8% pay cut, or having a sudden increase of 8% in your income tax without a subsequent raise in pay.  Do we need to remove this land from production?  Absolutely.  But if the farmer bought the land with the understanding that he was purchasing (according to the law) 60 acres of workable land, but then was told by the government after the sale that he is now only allowed to use 55 acres.  Is the farmer not entitled to compensation of some kind (again, this could be in the form of a tax rebate) since the sole cause of this loss of value is the change in the rules made by the government?

[alwaysfishn]

Please be careful when it comes to passing around my tax dollars. Contrary to popular belief there is not an unlimited supply.......   

[Sandman]

It's ridiculous to ask that my tax dollars be used to compensate anybody for being a good steward of the environment.

Please be careful when it comes to passing around my tax dollars. Contrary to popular belief there is not an unlimited supply.......   

Isn't interesting that you insist that the landowner pay to be a "good steward" but you yourself are not willing to pay for it.  While I am as disgusted as the next guy at the waste of my tax dollars, I would have no problem with being the highest taxed individual on the planet, if I knew that I lived in a society that believed in the value of public education, universal health care, AND the environment (yes, I often wonder IF I do).  I also suggest that the compensation be a tax "rebate" (if the set back affects 8% of the property, then the taxes are reduced by 8%; if it affects 2%, then the reduction is 2%), therefore, they would not be your tax dollars, they would be the farmers.  This is probably much less than the farmer would want, but may soften the blow at having to make the change to a stewardship role.