Action for Agriculture
Page 1
February 2017
Vol. 27, No. 1
NEWSLETTER www.actionforagriculture.com
February, 2017
Preserving Our Working Landscapes Message from the Chair For 26 years, Harvey Buckley was the backbone of and driving force behind Action for Agriculture which was originally created to represent the views of farmers and ranchers, largely in the MD #44 of Rocky View, who were dealing with the increasing pressures and incursions of an ever-expanding Calgary. Action for Agriculture’s early efforts concentrated on making presentations to municipal hearings so that the agricultural voice would be heard, often highlighting the negative impacts on agricultural operators caused by the continued fragmentation of farmland by urban developers. Although Harvey passed away in July, we at Action for Agriculture are determined to carry on his legacy by continuing to provide a forum for the discussion of land use issues and advocate for a healthy balance between development and the preservation of farmland and open spaces which we believe benefits us all. Over the years, Action for Agriculture expanded beyond the borders of Rocky View and began speaking on issues of provincial importance which included significant influence on the development of the Alberta’s Land Use Framework. In 2017, Action for Agriculture celebrated its 25th anniversary and in our commemorative newsletter, we published the names of all those who at one time or another had served
Page 1
on Action for Agriculture’s Board of Directors during those 25 years. There are over 50 people who have served on the board, often for several terms attesting to: 1) the importance that land use issues have to a large portion of the rural population. 2) the willingness of people to devote significant amounts of time to articulating and solving issues that are important not only to farmers and ranchers but to the well-being of all our lives in general. 3) Harvey’s wonderful ability to gently twist arms, bringing people of all political stripes and backgrounds into the fold and work together to discuss land use issues and find solutions. Recently, I encountered a wonderful example of how powerful it can be when people of different backgrounds sit at one table to discuss issues – the table in question happened to be in the Water Valley Saloon. The MLA for my constituency, Cam Westhead, phoned me up a few weeks ago and asked me (because of my Action for Agriculture connection) if I might accompany him to a meeting in Water Valley with some local ranchers and land owners who had concerns about his private
Page 2
Action for Agriculture
February 2017
Member’s motion which was approved in the legislature in December urging the government to do more to protect watersheds on public lands. Rather than just respond by email, our MLA had chosen to have a face to face discussion with the concerned ranchers and was hoping I could act as a bit of a buffer if he happened to be walking into a hornet’s nest. Having nothing scheduled for that Friday afternoon, I agreed to accompany him to Water Valley always in search of topics I can write about for this newsletter. And I was not disappointed. First of all, I had never been into the Water Valley Saloon before - the food was delicious and the atmosphere rustic and friendly. The meeting was attended by about 15 ranchers, landowners, campground operators, business owners and municipal politicians all of whom had a deep love of the land and genuine interest in land use policy. Stan Jensen, a Water Valley rancher, was the organizer of the meeting which he opened by introducing everyone who was around the table. He then read a carefully prepared statement expressing their concerns about Mr. Westhead’s motion (see following article). Mr. Westhead followed by explaining why he had made the motion and what he envisaged for the future of the motion. He also confessed that there was much he did not know and that his main objective for attending this meeting was to
listen and learn, a somewhat refreshing admission from a politician. At this point, everyone around the table had the opportunity to voice their opinions on headwater conservation and Mr. Westhead’s motion. Even though I expect there wasn’t a single card carrying member of the currently governing political party, the discussions, which carried on for an hour and a half were, without exception, civil and constructive. It was a wonderful example of what can happen when people of widely varying backgrounds, experience and viewpoints sit at one table to discuss complex issues with the objective of arriving at real solutions to real problems. In closing, I would like to invite everyone to Action for Agriculture’s AGM and Land Use Forum on March 3rd at the Cochrane RancheHouse. I assure you that the AGM portion of the session will be brief and most of the time will be devoted to our three wellqualified, invited speakers and follow-up discussions. There will be something worthwhile for everyone who has an interest in the topics of conservation easements, farmland conversion, and natural capital/ecological goods and services. Losing touch with the consumer/customer – who owns the message and who is ultimately buying your product – finding better ways of doing things
And please renew your memberships for 2017 either at the AGM or by returning to us the membership form on page 8. Thank you.
Page 2
Action for Agriculture
Page 3
February 2017
Newsletter – Table of Contents 1. Message from the Chair – Alan Breakey 2. Conservation on Alberta’s Public Lands – Some Pointed Observations and Recommendations – Stan Jensen 3. Legacy Land Trust – Kim Good 4. A Review of the Alberta Land Institute Study on Farmland Fragmentation– John McMurray
Conservation on Alberta’s Public Lands Some Pointed Observations and Recommendations Stan Jensen – Water Valley In December 2016, the MLA for Banff/Cochrane, Cam Westhead, brought forward private member’s Motion 511 to the legislative assembly which received unanimous, government support. The motion reads as follows: "Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to increase its efforts to conserve and manage public lands in Alberta's headwater regions to optimize downstream water security for future generations of Albertan's." A meeting of concerned landowners, ranchers and municipal politicians from the Ghost River to the Water Valley area was arranged with MLA Westhead on January 27th to get some clarification on what the long term implications of this motion might be. Although no one can dispute the general intent of the motion, there are many questions that need to be addressed before it can move forward such as: 1. 2. 3. 4.
What is considered the headwaters? How far downstream does this motion protect? What processes and solutions do you as the MLA presenting this motion have planned? What enforcement against abusers will be in place?
I was always taught that if you want to make a change, you must have a plan and follow it through to the finish - don't just pass it off to someone else which brings up more questions to the MLA: 1. Do you have the will, influence, and determination to drive this process forward? 2. Were the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and the Minister of Environment and Parks involved in the formulation of this motion with meaningful input and support?
Page 3
Page 4
Action for Agriculture
February 2017
Quite frankly, I believe all public lands should be protected - not just the headwater areas. If you protect the area just from the headwaters east of the Great Divide down to the forestry trunk road, the abuse that will get shifted downstream from the forestry trunk road will become even worse. This will pollute all the water which flows to our cities which rely completely on these water sources and will destroy all the fish habitat and spawning areas. The reality is that the most severe abuse by recreational and Off Road Users (ORU) occurs in the areas that are not along the popular travel routes because there is no enforcement. The focus of the very limited number of Fish and Wildlife officers is on the areas where there are more public eyes demanding attention and action. Furthermore, the current penalties are so nominal that the abusers who are caught just scoff at them. The fines should be changed and made to be meaningful and punitive. Such is the case when a hunter is caught breaking the hunting regulations - their equipment (OHV's, trucks, trailers, rifles etc.) is seized and they are served stiff monetary fines. If such a standard was applied to those abusing Public Lands, ORU's would think twice about the abuse to the land they are causing. About 15 years ago I was involved in the development of the multi-use approach to public lands and it was decided at that time to develop approved trails and select camping nodes; however, with only nominal penalties for those users not following the rules and continually less enforcement personnel available for monitoring the use, destruction on Public Lands kept increasing. Back then, a user fee on Public Lands was recommended similar to what has been done in Ontario for years but the government officials at the time didn't even consider this option. This should be done, with personnel who would have the authority to fine and evict abusers, possibly a third party agency which is what Ontario does, with all the user fees to be used for enforcement, upgrades, and restoration of the lands which have been destroyed by the massive number of quads, side by sides, dirt bikes and campers. And, abusers who are caught should be denied access to public lands for a minimum of two years. The Federal government does this for all federal parks. Ranchers who lease public lands for grazing have always used the land with respect because abusing the land which we love and make our livelihood from would not keep us in business for long. We are not allowed onto the public lands until the ground is firmed up after the spring thaw and the grass has been established for the year and the waterways are back to normal. On the other hand, the ORU's are allowed on the land year round which doesn't allow any recovery time for the native grasses and waterways. This also reduces the grass available to our cows when we do get to use it. We, the ranchers, pay the government an annual fee for the right for our cattle to graze on these lands and are subject to periodic review to verify that we are not abusing the land and we have to provide a sound explanation if there is lack of grass growth in areas, erosion into waterways, weed infestation, tree damage and more. If we don't correct these problems, our permits are not renewed and we aren't allowed on the land to graze it again. The general public pays nothing to use these lands again user fees should apply to everybody using Public Lands.
Page 5
Action for Agriculture
February 2017
People living in the towns and cities generally do not abuse their back yards so why should some of them feel entitled to abuse the Public Lands in their watershed areas? The Public Lands are our back yard - it's just larger than your average town back yards. We are not suggesting the elimination of ORU's and public use; we are, however, advocating for Respect for the Land, and for the implementation of a process to protect the lands from any abusers so that future generations can use and enjoy these lands. With proper control, the lands can be sustained and maintained for years to come. This requires recreational uses, logging companies, cattlemen, oil and gas companies and the government to work together to all have a positive impact for the Public Lands. The abuse will only get worse if the Government of Alberta doesn’t make some serious changes and take control of this out of control situation. By focusing/restricting protection on select areas of Public Lands (for example, The Castle), the government only puts more usage pressure on the remaining Public Lands - this is not a solution - working together with effective, self-sustaining, consistent regulations and enforcement on all Public Lands is. The current provincial government has said it has hired over 20 employees in the Dept. of Agriculture and Forestry - if this is so, where are these people and if they are field personal, it's a start; but with the vast area of Public Lands in the province, at least four times that number of personnel are needed. Eliminating any or all the user groups on public lands is not the solution, - instead of having “self-focused” agendas, we all need to work together in order to sustain our natural resources and preserve the splendor of our public lands.
The Legacy Land Trust Society – Alberta’s Newest Land Trust Kim Good – Executive Director, Legacy Land Trust While landowners can plan to develop their land into the future by applying for zoning changes and various permits, they have previously had few opportunities to plan for conservation. Many landowners make the environmental stewardship of their land a priority and these properties contribute greatly to the overall well-being and health of the region, by providing abundant clean water, wildlife habitat, food and fibre, tourism prospects, clean air and more. Land trusts help recognize these contributions. Legacy Land Trust Society is Alberta’s newest land trust. Legacy was initiated through the support of Mountain View County. Council sponsored a staff member of the planning department to consider if a regional land trust was a viable option for landowners and landscapes in this region. The answer was yes! The next few years saw a community member advisory committee create the framework for a land trust. In the fall of 2013, the organization became a non-profit society with many on the advisory committee populating the first board of directors. In the spring of 2015 Legacy became a registered charity; the first executive director was hired in August; and by fall of that year, the organization was deemed a qualified organization eligible to accept Ecological Gifts by Environment Canada. In December of 2015, Legacy became responsible for its first conservation
Page 6
Action for Agriculture
February 2017
easement. Two more conservation easements are currently being developed with the landowners and should be registered in the next few months. The area where Legacy works, exists as a result of the land-based resources in the area, whether they are agriculture, forestry, or oil and gas; the presence of these resources and the proximity to Calgary and Red Deer on the QEII highway brings people and jobs that strengthen our communities. The region also benefits from open landscapes, wildlife habitat, clean water and fresh air as these features have also attracted many to come live in the area. In the busy QEII corridor there has been and continues to be great potential for rapid landscape change, and Legacy exists to help balance that change. As a community land trust, Legacy was formed by local residents interested in conserving ecologically, culturally, historically, agriculturally and aesthetically valued properties into the future. Legacy provides an option for landowners and local governments in Mountain View County and all adjacent communities to support, steward, hold interest in, or the title of, ecologically important land, wildlife habitat and corridors, agricultural land, and significant historical and archeological sites. Legacy will enter into conservation projects as well as engage and facilitate a conservation community. The vision of the Legacy Land Trust Society (Legacy) is a community that shares a commitment to conservation and stewardship of our regional landscapes. The mission that supports this vision is Legacy working with you, our community, to help conserve nature, water, wildlife, food, and stories.
Impacts of Fragmentation John McMurray The Alberta Land Institute recently completed a study on Land Conversion and Fragmentation in Alberta. The study used aerial surveys and satellite imagery to track land use changes from 2000 to 2012. There is also a section comparing land use policies in Alberta and other jurisdictions for their effectiveness. The report evaluates several prior studies including a 2002 Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development report that assessed the loss and fragmentation of agricultural lands. Some of the prior studies looked at conversions between Ag uses such as pasture and hay to annual crops. Conversion between Ag uses was found to be dependent on commodity prices. Those earlier studies were limited in their evaluation of spillover effects and the impacts of fragmentation The study concentrated on the Edmonton Calgary Corridor (ECC) because it is the most developed area of Alberta and one of the top 4 urbanized regions in Canada. The ECC population grew by over 500,000 between the 2001 and 2011 censuses. The area covers only 6% of the province but contains 25% of the best agricultural land and 75% of the population. In the 12 year period of the study 200,000 acres were developed. 84% of that land was
Page 7
Action for Agriculture
February 2017
agricultural with most of the remainder (14%) being forest and grassland.
The report gets into very complicated analysis of variables to quantify the degree of fragmentation based on the satellite imagery. The authors compared patch density, average patch size, edge density, perimeter to area ratio, and effective mesh size. But the analysis falls short because the average changes caused by fragmentation are offset by increases in farm sizes over the same time period. The 30m x 30m resolution can also fail to capture well sites and other small yet disruptive fragments. By using more detailed census data and formulas that look like this:
They found a 30% lagged impact effect that means 10 acres of development will result in a spillover effect that results in additional 3 acres development in that area. The policy implication of this result and unplanned additional development is that land use decisions should not
Action for Agriculture
Page 8
February 2017
be made in isolation. There are strong impacts on neighboring jurisdictions so a collaborative approach would be better to optimize the allocation of land uses. This collaborative approach also includes other agencies that do not typically have a stake in municipal planning. Currently, agriculture is a shared responsibility of federal and provincial governments yet those governments have no influence. Few municipalities have distinct or binding agricultural strategies. When a single agency is responsible for land use decisions, as in the current model with Alberta municipalities, the external effects of developments are not properly considered which leads to inefficiencies and unintended consequences. A full 80 page report that uses the referenced study and others can be downloaded from http://www.albertalandinstitute.ca/research/research-projects
MEMBERSHIP FORM Individual Membership fee - $25.00 Family Membership fee - $45.00 Corporate Membership fee - $75.00
Name: Address: Phone Number: E-mail: Membership Preference Preference for newsletter (mark with an X)
Mail:
E-mail:
Your membership expired December 31, 2016. Please use the form to renew for 2017.
Mail to Action for Agriculture, Box 416, Bragg Creek, AB T0L 0K0 or contact us at
[email protected] Action for Agriculture Board of Directors Chair: Alan Breakey (Bragg Creek) Vice Chair: Ralph Nelson (High River) Treasurer: Bob Anderson (Kathyrn) Secretary: John McMurray (Airdrie)
Directors at Large Doug Wray(Irricana) Greg Hawkwood (Cochrane) Brenda Knight (Wheatland County) Barry Clayton (Indus-Chestermere)
