Press Release: Grizzly Bears on the Brink

Press Release from the David Suzuki Foundation:

Grizzly bears deserve immediate legal protection in Canada

Study finds many bear populations are on the brink of extinction

                                                            

For Immediate Release                                                                                                                                             March 14, 2013

VANCOUVER – Grizzly bears could disappear from many parts of Canada unless action is taken to list them under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) and initiate immediate recovery efforts, including protecting their dwindling habitat in some regions.

That’s the conclusion of a David Suzuki Foundation study that analyzed provincial and federal government data on the status of grizzly populations across Western Canada. The report, Securing a National Treasure, revealed that 16 subgroups are on the brink of extinction in regions where they once flourished. This includes nine groups in south-central British Columbia and Alberta’s entire grizzly population, which remains vulnerable despite a recent hunting ban.

“Grizzly bears are at risk of disappearing completely from many parts of Western Canada, including all of southern B.C. and the South Coast Mountains, as well as a few subpopulations in west-central Alberta, unless immediate action is taken to list and protect them under the federal Species at Risk Act,” said Faisal Moola, a scientist with the David Suzuki Foundation. “We must protect this iconic symbol of Canadian wilderness, which plays such a critical role in the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem,” he added.

The Foundation’s report comes on the heels of an assessment by Canada’s expert science panel on species at risk, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which found that although healthy populations of grizzlies remain in much of Canada’s remote northern wilderness, southern populations in Alberta and B.C. are in trouble as a result of shrinking habitat and excessive human-caused mortality. For this reason, scientists have formally declared the animal a species of “special concern” that should be added to the official List of Wildlife Species at Risk (Schedule 1) under the Species at Risk Act.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent received COSEWIC’s formal recommendation last fall and must now decide whether to legally list grizzly bears under the Species at Risk Act, reject listing, or refer the matter back to COSEWIC for further study.

“For the second time in 10 years, the federal government’s advisory panel on wildlife has strongly recommended legally listing and protecting grizzly bears,” Moola said. “Five different environment ministers, Liberal and Conservative, have failed to act on the scientists’ advice. We hope Canada’s current environment minister will listen to the experts and take action to save this iconic species.”

Canada’s grizzly bears are among the most vulnerable large mammals on the continent for a number of reasons, including low reproductive rates; increasing pressures from resource extraction, such as oil and gas development; climate change and death from sport hunting, control kills and poaching.

“First Nations have shared the land with bears for thousands of years,” said Douglas Neasloss, a renowned bear guide and leader with the Kitasoo/XaixaisBand Council in B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest. “We not only revere the animal in our culture but also depend on it as part of the sustainable tourism industry we are trying to create so that people from around the world can come to see bears in the wild,” he added. “We must implement legislative measures to protect and recover grizzly bears before it’s too late.”

The Species at Risk Act is the key legislative tool for protecting declining species, such as blue whales, caribou and rare plants like butternut trees in Canada. If grizzly bears are successfully added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk (Schedule 1) under the Species at Risk Act as a species of “special concern”, the government will have to initiate formal measures to protect and recover the species, including creation of a management plan and other conservation measures.

 

News Release: Federal Government Misleading Canadians…

…which isn’t news in itself, but the latest latest report from Environment Canada, as released by Peter Kent, the ”Environment Minister”, suggests that… 

“This is the result of our government’s realistic, sector-by-sector approach to reducing emissions, while continuing to create jobs and encourage economic growth,” Kent told reporters Wednesday.

Of course, those of us who have watched the Conservatives since they gained the majority know that practically nothing they say is true, as this news release from the David Suzuki Foundation confirms:

 

Federal climate report misleads Canadians

Government is taking credit for provincial action

For Immediate Release                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     August 8, 2012

 

VANCOUVER – The federal government is misleading Canadians with its latest report on greenhouse gas emissions trends. Despite the claims made by Environment Minister Peter Kent, the government has done very little to achieve its weak targets.

“The federal government is attempting to take credit for climate change action taken by the provinces, while gutting and cutting programs and institutions that had been helping with climate policy,” says Ian Bruce, David Suzuki Foundation climate change and clean energy specialist.

As noted in the David Suzuki Foundation report “All Over the Map 2012: A Comparison of Provincial Climate Change Plans”, much of Canada’s emissions reductions can be attributed to provincial initiatives such as Ontario’s phase out of coal-fired power, Nova Scotia’s regulations to cap and reduce coal emissions, B.C.’s carbon tax incentive for clean energy, and Quebec’s public transit improvements.

Meanwhile, the government has cut institutions such as the national Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and been criticized by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada for the lack of a clear plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In October 2011, the Environment Commissioner reported that the federal government’s strategy is “disjointed, confused and non transparent” and that the government’s policies are now projected to be 90 per cent weaker than they were in 2007.

The figures released today by the federal government are also based on revised baselines and accounting rules for greenhouse gas pollution.

“Rather than trying to put a positive spin on its lack of accountability on the environment, the federal government should join forces with leading provincial governments to help Canada become a world leader in solving global warming,” Bruce says. “With this summer shaping up to be the hottest on record, Canadians need and deserve real action on global warming, which would provide numerous economic and health benefits. The government must start representing the interests of all Canadians and not just the oil industry.”

 

 

 

Related articles

• Peter Kent’s department discouraged media coverage of global warming summit, says memo (o.canada.com)
• Panel sends Harper “reality check” on global warming (blogs.canada.com)
• Mercury contaminating bird eggs in oilsands region: Environment Canada (canada.com)
• Peter Kent says budget bill to eliminate thousands of environmental assessments (vancouversun.com)
• ‘Elevated risk’ of caribou disappearing from oilsands region, memo tells Peter Kent (canada.com)
• Obscure and unloved: Federal government spurns a chance to help boost three endangered species (vancouversun.com)

Canada to End Shark Fin Trade?

With support from all parties, Elizabeth May‘s bill could stop the trade of sharkfins in Canada. Here is the newsrelease from Wild Aid:

Green Party Leader Introduces Bill to End Shark Fin Trade in Canada

Victoria, British Columbia (April 19, 2012) – After working closely with
conservation group WildAid for the past 6 months, Canadian MP and Green Party Leader
Elizabeth May announced legislation on Wednesday that, if fully implemented, will amend
the Fish Inspection Act and Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act in the hopes of ending
the shark fin trade Canada.

“Elizabeth May’s bill is another key step in the growing campaign to address the global
shark fin trade,” said Rob Sinclair, Executive Director of WildAid Canada. “Her action
could effectively lead to end of the shark fin trade in Canada, which would be the first
federal shark fin ban in the western world.”

Should it pass, May’s bill will require shark products to include written documentation of
the species and country of origin, as well as a label showing that mercury contamination
may make the product unfit for human consumption.

Shark fin soup is a key reason why one-third of the world’s open-ocean shark species are
now threatened with extinction. Fins from up to 73 million sharks are used every year to
make shark fin soup and related food products.

While the practice of shark finning is prohibited by regulation in Canada and the U.S.,
current federal laws banning shark finning do not address the issue of the international
shark fin trade. Therefore, fins are being sold to North America from countries with few or
even no shark protection in place.

Over four million Canadians now live in jurisdictions that have banned shark fin. The
Canadian cities of Toronto, Mississauga, London, Oakville, Pickering, Newmarket and
Brantford have all ended the practice. U.S. state bans have passed recently in California,
Hawaii, Washington and Oregon and bans have been started in seven other states.

About WildAid:
WildAid is the only organization to focus on reducing the demand for wildlife products
with the strong and simple message: when the buying stops, the killing can too. WildAid
works with Asian and Western celebrities and business leaders to dissuade people from
purchasing wildlife products via public service announcements and educational initiatives.
For more information, please visit http://www.wildaid.org/canada.

Related articles

• Neurotoxins in shark fins: A human health concern (sciencedaily.com)
• Thousands of Shark Fins Found on Hong Kong Sidewalk (treehugger.com)
• Shark fin ban gathers steam in Maryland and beyond (environmenteng.wordpress.com)

The Carnival of Evolution is now up!

The latest edition of the Carnival of Evolution is now up at Splendour Awaits!  And this 45th edition really bugs me!

If you wish to submit to CoE #46, visit the Carnival of Evolution for guidelines and to see previous issues. You can submit your blog posts at Blog Carnival, or contact the next host at Synthetic Daisies.

Related articles

• Proceedings of the 44th Carnival of Evolution (genome-engineering.com)

Canadian National Parks Selling Out…

This will no doubt become a trend, as Parks Canada, under a Conservative government, resorts to allowing private enterprise to mar one of the natural wonders of this great national park. The Disney-fication of our National Parks has begun. Here is the full release from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society which has steadfastly opposed this project:

Ottawa — The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) is disappointed that Parks Canada has approved a proposal by Brewster Canada Ltd. for the controversial Glacier Discovery Walk in Jasper National Park.

The development will result in a 300-metre walkway and massive glass-floored “skywalk” along the Icefields Parkway in Jasper National Park, replacing a highway pullout where park visitors can currently park their vehicles and enjoy the free view.

Since the project was first made public, CPAWS has opposed this development proposal, as have many other organizations and individuals from across Canada.  “We’re opposed to this massive development because the long-term impact it may have on wildlife in the area, including mountain goats and other sensitive species, is simply not known,” says Éric Hébert-Daly, CPAWS National Executive Director, based in Ottawa.

This type of development also contradicts the National Parks Policy which states that: “Only outdoor activities which promote the appreciation of a park’s purpose and objectives, which respect the integrity of the ecosystem, and which call for a minimum of built facilities will be permitted.”
CPAWS has kept its supporters informed on this issue, generating thousands of letters of opposition from Canadians to the government and the Parks Canada Agency.

“We’re extremely disappointed with this decision.  The Canada National Parks Act states that ecological integrity shall be the first priority when managing the parks and we don’t believe that this decision reflects this priority,” adds Calgary-based Anne-Marie Syslak, Executive Director of CPAWS Southern Alberta Chapter.

CPAWS supports appropriate opportunities within our national parks for people to grow their appreciation of nature and the special ecosystems they protect. However, projects like this are not suitable within our national park boundaries. A similar US project went ahead in the Grand Canyon, but outside the park boundaries.

“We don’t feel that thrill-seeking experiences such as a glass-bottomed viewing platform offer the type of activity within national parks that builds people’s appreciation of nature,” says CPAWS Northern Alberta chapter Executive Director Kelly Sloan.

“We’re also concerned about the direction Parks Canada is taking by approving this type of development, which appears to be driven by commercial rather than ecological considerations. The agency should have more stringent filters on their management plans and decision-making processes to protect the ecological values and natural landscapes of our national parks,” adds Hébert-Daly.

-Contacts:  Eric Hebert-Daly, (613)899-7226 (Ottawa), Anne-Marie Syslak, amsyslak@cpaws.org ,  403-232-6601 (Calgary), Kelly Sloan,  ksloan@cpaws.org , 780-686-8165 (Edmonton)

Make yourself heard on this: visit: Jasper is our national park not a theme park!

Related articles

• The Government is considering privatising a section of Jasper National Park (theinspiredpacker.wordpress.com)
• Jasper glacier walk targeted by online petition (cbc.ca)
• Thousands sign on to petition protesting Jasper trail, observation deck (vancouversun.com)
• Jasper National Park puts glacier walk decision on ice (vancouversun.com)
• Thousands sign on to petition protesting Jasper trail, observation deck (canada.com)
• Jasper glacier skywalk decision delayed (cbc.ca)

Has Harper’s Conservative Government been Hijacked by Foreign Oil Interests?

Recently, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, wrote an open letter claiming that  ”...foreign special interest groups“ (sounds like Assad?) are opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline. He is singing the tune of the absurd Ethical Oil group (who won’t reveal who they are supported by), not mentioning that Enbridge’s initial supporter for the pipeline was the Chinese company Sinopec; and that the oil will be shipped to a country whose human rights record can only be considered as unethical. As usual the Conservatives are displaying new and massive levels of hypocrisy.

Let Elizabeth May have a word: here is her Open Letter to Joe…

Dear Joe,

Your letter caught my attention.  I respect you and like you a lot as a colleague in the House.  Unfortunately, I think your role as Minister of Natural Resources has been hijacked by the PMO spin machine.  The PMO is, in turn, hijacked by the foreign oil lobby. You are, as Minister of Natural Resources, in a decision-making, judge-like role.  You should not have signed such a hyperbolic rant.

I have reproduced a short section of your letter. The idea that First Nations, conservation groups, and individuals opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline are opposed to all forestry, mining, hydro-electric and gas is not supported by the facts.  I am one of those opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline.  I do not oppose all development; neither does the Green Party; neither do environmental NGOS; neither do First Nations.

I oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline for a number of reasons, beginning with the fact that the project requires over-turning the current moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the British Columbia coastline. The federal-provincial oil tanker moratorium has been in place for decades.  As former Industry Canada deputy minister Harry Swain pointed out in today’s Globe and Mail, moving oil tankers through 300 km of perilous navigation in highly energetic tidal conditions is a bad choice. In December 2010, the government’s own Commissioner for the Environment, within the Office of the Auditor General, reported that Canada lacked the tools to respond to an oil spill.  These are legitimate concerns.

Furthermore, running a pipeline through British Columbia’s northern wilderness, particularly globally significant areas such as the Great Bear Rainforest, is a bad idea.  Nearly 1200 kilometers of pipeline through wilderness and First Nations territory is not something that can be fast-tracked.

Most fundamentally, shipping unprocessed bitumen crude out of Canada has been attacked by the biggest of Canada’s energy labour unions, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, as a bad idea. The CEP estimates it means exporting 40,000 jobs out of Canada (figure based on jobs lost through the Keystone Pipeline). They prefer refining the crude here in Canada.  (The CEP is also not a group to which your allegation that opponents of Gateway also oppose all forestry, mining, oil, gas, etc is anything but absurd.)

The repeated attacks on environmental review by your government merit mention.  The federal law for environmental review was first introduced under the Mulroney government.  Your government has dealt repeated blows to the process, both through legislative changes, shoved through in the 2010 omnibus budget bill, and through budget cuts.  In today’s letter, you essentially ridicule the process through a misleading example.  Your citation of “a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond in Banff” requiring federal review was clearly intended to create the impression that the scope of federal review had reached absurd levels.  You neglected to mention that the arena was within the National Park. That is the only reason the federal government was involved.  It was required by the National Parks Act. The fact that the arena approval took only two months shows the system works quite well.

Perhaps most disturbing in the letter is the description of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline as coming from “environmental and other radical groups.”  Nowhere in your letter do you mention First Nations.  (I notice you mention “Aboriginal communities,” but First Nations require the appropriate respect that they represent a level of government, not merely individuals within communities.)

The federal government has a constitutional responsibility to respect First Nations sovereignty and protect their interests.  It is a nation to nation relationship.  To denigrate their opposition to the project by lumping it in with what you describe (twice) as “radical” groups is as unhelpful to those relationships as it is inaccurate.

“Radical” is defined as “relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.”  (Merriam Webster).

By that definition, it is not First Nations, conservation groups or individual opponents that are radical.  They seek to protect the fundamental nature of the wilderness of northern British Columbia, the ecological health of British Columbia coastal eco-systems, and the integrity of impartial environmental review.  It is your government that is radical by proposing quite radical alteration of those values.

Your government has failed to present an energy strategy to Canada.  We have no energy policy.  We are still importing more than half of the oil we use.  Further, we have no plan to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, even as we sign on to global statements about the need to keep greenhouse gases from rising above 450 ppm in the atmosphere to keep global average temperatures from exceeding a growth of 2 degrees C.  The climate crisis imperils our future – including our economic future – in fundamental ways which your government ignores.

By characterizing this issue as environmental radicals versus Canada’s future prosperity you have done a grave disservice to the development of sensible public policy.  There are other ways to diversify Canada’s energy markets.  There are other routes, other projects, and most fundamentally other forms of energy.

I urge you to protect your good name and refuse to sign such unworthy and inaccurate missives in the future.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.

Member of Parliament
Saanich-Gulf Islands

Leader
Green Party of Canada

Related articles

• Unethical oil and its friends
• Effort to silence Northern Gateway pipeline critics called ‘red herring’ (vancouversun.com)
• Minister takes on ‘radical’ environmentalists over pipeline (vancouversun.com)
• Harper government steps up attack on environmentalists over pipeline issue (thestar.com)
• Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline – Toronto Star (thestar.com)
• Northern Gateway pipeline hearings to start in B.C. (cbc.ca)

All for a miserable bowl of soup…

Support the shark fin ban in Canada .

Find your member of Parliament, and give them a piece of your mind.

And if you can, support the work of WildAid.

Related articles

• Yao Ming Urges China to Lay Off the Shark Fin Soup (inquisitr.com)
• Shark fin trade fight backed by Yao Ming, Branson (cbc.ca)
• The Soup That Is Killing the Ocean (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT) [Video] (gizmodo.com)