Kananaskis logging ignites forestry methods debate
Originally published in FFWD January 31, 2008 by Drew Anderson in Environment
Generally a place for calm reflection and recreation, the woods also stir powerful emotions and conflicts between user groups with vastly different points of view. Locally and beyond, these emotions cloud debate about the proper use and place in our lives of these wooded lands.
In the hills and forests that mark the entrance to Kananaskis Country, the debate about clearcut logging is in full swing. As trees are removed in the southwest section of Kananaskis, in accordance with a long-standing lease with Spray Lake Sawmills, people who live in the forest and those who use it for recreation cry foul. Water, fire, esthetics, recreation and wildlife all factor into the debate. How should we treat our forests, and what is the best method, if any, of removing trees for the goods we all rely on? The frustrating answer according to those involved: it depends.
NATURAL DISTURBANCES
Dr. Edward Johnson, a biologist at the University of Calgary who specializes in natural disturbances on the landscape, says local geography and tree species must be taken into account before judging logging practices. “What you have to remember is when it comes to logging, you have to match the way you log to the life history strategies of the trees involved,” he says. “In the Boreal forest, and in conifer forests in general, in the mountains for example here, these trees are almost all adjusted to large holes.” The holes he refers to are the wide-open spaces provided by forest fires, as well as those left when trees are clear cut. The trees include pine, the most prolific tree species on the eastern slopes of the Rockies. Lodgepole pine requires direct sunlight and heat in order to germinate after a fire, or in the case of man-made disturbance, after logging. In wildfires, the cones disperse their seeds after breaking open in heat, and the exposed warm, nutrient-rich soil allows the seeds to germinate quickly.
“When foresters try to mimic this, they realized you have to clear cut everything,” says Johnson. “The other thing was you had to burn off the surface layer like fires would. That turned out to be quite an expensive and tricky issue to do. So they usually scarify with big chains or something, in an attempt to expose parts of mineral soil so you can get a regeneration.”
Growth of a different kind is what disturbs Nigel Douglas, a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA). He says you could argue clear cutting is the best mimic of natural disturbance, but that fires don’t build hundreds of kilometres of roads through the forest, fragmenting the landscape and natural habitats.
DISPUTED HARVEST
Gord Lehn is the woodlands manager for Spray Lake Sawmills, the Cochrane-based company that holds the rights to log portions of Kananaskis, which the company has done for over 60 years. Rows of raw logs point the way along Griffin Road to the lumber yard, slowly giving way to neat stacks of timber, a fitting allegory to the business. The sign at the entrance to the lumberyard, carved out of wood of course, declares Jesus is Lord.
Lehn’s office — the Spray Lake Sawmills head office — is almost entirely wooden, something he claims unnerves some people, including former staff, but this fits the company’s belief in its product. The business almost always uses clearcut logging to extract its prized wood, he says, for the same reasons highlighted by Johnson.
“It’s a mixture. It’s mostly clear cutting. You have to ask the question: why? How do you choose the harvesting system that you do? In the eastern-slope foothills of Alberta, we’re about 70 per cent lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pine is a fire-origin species. That species was naturally adapted to come back after a fire,” he says.
Fire is used not only as a precedent for the use of clearcuts in our forests, but also as a reason. Many argue that our forests, due to successful fire suppression to save timber resources, homes and hikers, has resulted in forests that are over mature, that need removal in one form or another, either to help nature and its fickle cycles, or to prevent a major fire event.
Dave Ealey, a spokesperson with Sustainable Resource Development Alberta (SRD), the government department responsible for industrial activity in our forests, says that “we have ended up in a situation where we have a much older population of forests than we would have had before the fire suppression took hold in the ’40s.” He insists that government policy concerning logging and logging practices reflects the need for diverse-age forests and prevents forest fires from ravaging an area.
This over-mature forest argument doesn’t wash with some, including Ralph Cartar, a biologist at the University of Calgary, and president of the Bragg Creek Environmental Coalition. He says “SRD still uses this argument even though it’s false, that the effect of fire suppression on the landscape has caused an unnaturally old forest.” Cartar argues that it is only during the first 25 years of a tree’s life that the fire risk is reduced by its smaller stature — after that the threat of fire is identical over its lifespan. “So if they’re going to come through every 99 years to cut it, three quarters of the time that forest will provide a risk to the community, you’ve only removed the risk for a quarter of the time, so that can’t be the reason you’re logging.”
Something that Parker Hogan, spokesperson for the Alberta Forest Products Association grudgingly admits, may be true. “Well, I guess it would make sense if all you’re doing is running numbers and hypotheticals,” he says. “But if I’m in that community and there is a fire, I’d rather that it be half as big as it was before it hit that break, because maybe my house, my belongings might be saved.”
One of the most prominent, or often-cited, concerns associated with clearcut logging, and something that again draws parallels to the effects of fire, is water quality. This is particularly relevant for Calgarians when you realize our water supply slowly meanders through the logging areas of Kananaskis.
One of the men responsible for the quality of Calgary’s water is John Jagorinec, senior water quality and regulatory analyst for the city. He has concerns about logging in our watershed, but downplays doomsday scenarios. “Theoretically, when you cut down large areas of forest, you can have a quicker runoff, and you can have more erosion and more sediment entering streams,” he says. “So, from a water-quality perspective, you have to deal with the potential of increased sediment-loading, you might have to deal with increased nutrients and things that are dissolved in the water from a water treatment perspective as well.”
He also says that without adequate vegetation, water rushes into the rivers, meaning there is too much during the wet season, and less water during drier times.
At issue is the cleansing process that water goes through as it drips and trickles through forest growth, as well as the slow seeping of rainwater into the rivers, as opposed to its rushing down bare slopes. These processes no longer exist when areas of the forest are removed.
“So this big sponge is sort of cleaning and soaking up the water and then slowly releasing it in dry periods,” says Douglas. “So if you get a big area of clearcut forestry, that water, when it rains, it hits the ground and rushes straight off into the rivers. It’s not getting cleansed, it’s not getting filtered, it’s taking all sorts of silt and muck with it.”
For the health of the water supply, Jagorinec thinks there may be better methods of logging, but relies on the expertise of the SRD in these matters and is in close contact with the department to address any concerns. For the time being, he is satisfied that increased monitoring will prevent any irreversible harm to the water supply. Those on the industry side argue that a fire is far more destructive to aquatic environments, particularly because a fire doesn’t leave a buffer zone of vegetation around lakes, creeks and rivers, while industry does.
Johnson, however, says there has to be more research into the effects on watersheds, of fires and man-made disturbances alike. “In the mountains here, our biggest problem… is that we know very little,” he says. “We do know from other places that logging in general doesn’t have that much of an impact if it’s carried out in a normal way. The biggest problem is the logging roads.”
According to Johnson, it is the roads that cause the most runoff into streams, runoff that carries with it contaminants from vehicles as well as increased silt and gravel. In addition to threatening the water, roads also increase human access to wild places, and the resulting impact on the natural environment is central to arguments against logging.
“When it comes to grizzly bears, to woodland caribou, to a whole lot of things like that, it comes down to access,” says Douglas. “We’re fragmenting landscapes, and it’s been really conclusively proven, certainly with grizzly bears, that that’s the main factor in the mortality of grizzly bears, is access.”
Others think that clearcuts are actually beneficial to wildlife, though this remains a contentious point. The government position is that “wildlife can do very well, and in fact, rely on some of these very early stage forest habitats to provide food… it opens up the forest,” according to Ealey.
Some animals like the open spaces and the easy-access vegetation they provide. Moose, elk, deer and bear all come to the clearings to feed, particularly when food is scarce, but Douglas argues that, at least in the case of the grizzly, there are some serious setbacks to this. He says that although some, like Ealey, will argue wildlife can thrive in these open spaces, that doesn’t take into account the risks associated with them. Though a grizzly bear may more easily find food and space in a clearcut, it’s “completely outweighed by the fact that they’re likely to be killed there because of the access.”
Access is a funny component to the debate about logging. Proponents of intensive logging argue that without its tree harvesting, public access to the sights and sounds of the deep woods would be limited. Many trails are carved by logging companies, and many areas enjoyed by Calgarians were logged in the not-so-distant past. Kananaskis is rife with recreational opportunities created by past logging.
Opponents of logging operations also point to increased access as a reason to stop logging, either to stop removing forests valued for reasons apart from the price of timber, like recreation, or paradoxically, to keep humans and their bad habits from penetrating deeper into the wilderness.
‘CLEARCUTS AREN’T SEXY’
Separated by Highway 1, but ideologically miles apart, Doug Sephton, Alvise Majer of the group Save Kananaskis, and Cartar, represent the foil to Lehn and the wooden office and lumber trucks of the Spray Lake Sawmills. In the Bragg Creek community centre, the three men sit on borrowed chairs in the front entrance as a Christmas craft sale is in full swing. Calgarians swarm to the centre to buy carved wooden goods and other small-town specialties, part of the charm of this far-flung pseudo-suburb. These men represent the nucleus of opposition to logging in the area and symbolize where the true nature of pro versus con comes into play: emotions.
“I think a little emotion is really good, because if you’re not emotionally invested in something then you’re just having a debate. But at the same time, you need to have some kind of a rational viewpoint on it,” says Hogan. Unfortunately, that rational viewpoint has no centre when it comes down to differing values.
Sephton is an unlikely environmentalist — in fact, he really isn’t one. He is a businessman concerned about the effects of logging on the quality of life in his cherished hometown and surrounding forest. He argues those who come to the area for weekends and day trips will be robbed of the beauty his neighbourhood offers. “That experience is going to be taken away from them when they look out over the landscape and see a bunch of clearcut patches off into the horizon,” he says. “We’re forced by the government to discuss these kinds of complex technical issues…. The point is, they shouldn’t be there at all. It’s not about whether there’s contaminants in the creek, it’s that this is more valuable to people than it is to [Spray Lake Sawmills] and they just shouldn’t be there.”
According to Cartar, this is definitely a case of NIMBY, but a justified one. With a city of a million people just a half-hour away, this is the playground for those surrounded on a daily basis by concrete and cars.
The problem is that forestry is ugly. Even if industry were able to mimic natural disturbances, and ensure ecological integrity in all aspects, which it can’t, the use of logging would nag at those who prefer a pristine environment. “It has been given a bad name over time, predominantly by environmental groups because it frankly takes large swaths of forested lands and cuts them all down,” says Hogan. “A colleague of mine presented a paper at a conference recently, and it was entitled ‘Clear Cuts Aren’t Sexy,’ and they’re not. You can even talk to foresters, they’re not really pretty things to look at a year or two after the harvesting has been done.” Hogan still believes, regardless of poor optics, that intensive logging is an appropriate activity in Alberta’s forests, and will continue to improve.
Despite appearances, the logging industry in Alberta has come a long way in the last 40 years, adding buffer zones to protect water, reducing the size of clearcuts, replanting trees and attempting to mimic natural disturbances. However, that doesn’t mean the industry is perfect, even according to those who vehemently support it. “The thing about forestry is it’s as much an art as it is a science,” says Hogan. “The only way you really know if anything you try to do is right is by doing it to the best of your ability and then waiting to see the results.”
This large-scale experimentation with the forest is what angers opponents to logging, locally and globally. When there is an emotional attachment to the woods that surround us, trying to get it right and missing the mark from time to time is unacceptable to some. “We see that as inappropriate because the forest that they are removing is valuable for other reasons,” says Cartar. “So there is, in a sense, a clash of values.”
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The wrong machine
Conservation groups alienated by provincial stakeholder consultation process
Originally published in FFWD February 28, 2008 by Drew Anderson in News
Public and stakeholder consultation in the province is largely failing to live up to the public interest, according to some stakeholders involved in environmental protection. This contention has recently been highlighted by the use of advisory councils in the provincial Water for Life strategy and the process that led to the creation of Alberta’s new Land-use Framework.
Many environmental groups chose not to participate in the discussions on the Land-use Framework, citing concerns with the ongoing consultation process; while those involved in the Water for Life strategy are concerned about the lack of authority for water councils.
“The most recent stakeholder process has been the Land-use Framework, which they’ve [the government] been working on drafting for roughly a couple of years now,” says Diane Pachal, Alberta wilderness director for the Sierra Club of Canada Prairie Chapter. “Prior to that, landholder groups and conservation groups and environmental groups all met and looked at the proposed process. Those of us with experience in previous processes said ‘Oh, this isn’t going to work.’”
The framework is intended to be a government policy that lays the foundation for managing natural resources in the province, on both public and private lands. The environmental groups drafted a set of suggestions for the government about how to make the process function in a way that could bring them on board, but the government largely ignored these suggestions. “If a process isn’t designed to work, what’s the point of putting your time into it? You can always do other things with that time,” says Pachal.
Essentially the groups were concerned about what they perceived as the process’s lack of accountability and murky goals.
Major concerns with the discussions raised by the discouraged environmental groups centreed on the design of the consultation process and the commitment of the government to support the framework and to be held accountable. They wanted clearer goals and direction from the government before proceeding. According to David Kahane, a professor at the Univesity of Alberta who specializes in participatory democratic theory and practice, the design of the process is the most important factor in determining whether a collaborative process will work, particularly in terms of who gets to participate. “For me, the big variable in making these democratically legitimate or illegitimate is how carefully you think about the principles that are governing who you bring in and how transparent you are about that,” says Kahane.
According to Deleen Schoff, a spokesperson for Sustainable Resource Development — the government ministry in charge of the land-use discussions — despite environmental group concerns, there was significant participation in the process. “Over 3,000 Albertans did complete the workbooks, 110 stakeholders chose to have a voice in the process and served on the working groups, and we’re thankful that that has happened,” she says.
However, the fact that many participate in a process does not ensure a balanced outcome, according to Pachal, something she says she has seen from the provincial government in the realm of habitat protection for threatened species. “Say 80 per cent of the public wants to see caribou habitat protected and caribou recover,” she explains, “but that’s not necessarily represented at the table because you’ve got all the industry sectors… and if the selection of the stakeholders isn’t careful, you’ll wind up with the balance at the table being organizations for which wildlife habitat or conservation is not the priority of their organization,” she says.
Another priority that is constantly raised these days is the issue of water use in the province. The Conservatives moved on this front and established the Water for Life strategy that includes the creation of advisory water councils consisting of concerned stakeholders. While the move towards a collaborative approach to finding solutions can be viewed as a positive step towards greater democratic participations, some see fatal flaws in the organization.
“We’ve been involved in this pretty intimately for a couple of years now, and our unfolding view is that we’ve got to get back to basics with respect to governance. At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility for protecting our watersheds should lie with government. Particularly the provincial government,” says Danielle Droitsch, director of Bow Riverkeeper and a participant on the Bow River Basin Council.
While she supports the concept of Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils (WPACS) like the Bow Basin Council, which look into issues for specific watersheds, she thinks that it can act as a distraction and a means to stall effective change, rather than a powerful policy tool.
“So for example, WPACS don’t have any authority, they have no legal authority whatsoever to actually change what happens on the landscape. Their only power — and even that power hasn’t been defined anywhere near clearly enough — is an advisory capacity,” she says. “There’s absolutely nothing written down that says the government must listen to the WPACs.”
Kahane holds out a great deal of hope for the future of democracy and puts most of that hope in collaborative methods that engage citizens in the decision-making process, but he doesn’t think that Alberta is there yet. In the case of exercises for which there is no legitimate authority, like advisory bodies without teeth, he is cautious.
“It’s not clear what the democratic usefulness of those sorts of exercises are, because it’s at least always vulnerable to the suspicion that this is just window dressing. That you bring people together, they say lots of different things and then the government goes, ‘Oh, what we discovered was they love our policy,’” he says.
He is quick to point out, however, that when discussing new forms of democracy, it is always important to contrast with the system that is already in place, rather than aiming for an ideal right away. “You want to assess the democratic effect of these sorts of stakeholder processes compared to the kind of democracy we already have. I don’t think we have some glowing model of representative democracy in Alberta,” he says.
There is also the concern of compromise in any process that involves divergent interests coming together at the same table, something particularly worrisome for environmental groups. “When you get a whole bunch of people in a room, I see people compromising away what they feel is their bottom line simply to get the acceptance of an industry player at the table who has no real reason for making commitments that will cost them money,” says Droitsch, reiterating that it should be up to the government to institute solid bottom lines to ensure appropriate conservation of our waterways.
For Pachal, it all comes down to how you grind it all out. “They make the analogy to sausages; if you don’t have a good sausage machine, and you’re not putting good things into it, you get crappy sausages at the other end, and that’s what’s happening,” she says. “We’ve been getting crappy sausages — crappy policies and programs — the machine’s the wrong machine, and the wrong things are going into it.”
Originally published in FFWD February 28, 2008 by Drew Anderson in News
Public and stakeholder consultation in the province is largely failing to live up to the public interest, according to some stakeholders involved in environmental protection. This contention has recently been highlighted by the use of advisory councils in the provincial Water for Life strategy and the process that led to the creation of Alberta’s new Land-use Framework.
Many environmental groups chose not to participate in the discussions on the Land-use Framework, citing concerns with the ongoing consultation process; while those involved in the Water for Life strategy are concerned about the lack of authority for water councils.
“The most recent stakeholder process has been the Land-use Framework, which they’ve [the government] been working on drafting for roughly a couple of years now,” says Diane Pachal, Alberta wilderness director for the Sierra Club of Canada Prairie Chapter. “Prior to that, landholder groups and conservation groups and environmental groups all met and looked at the proposed process. Those of us with experience in previous processes said ‘Oh, this isn’t going to work.’”
The framework is intended to be a government policy that lays the foundation for managing natural resources in the province, on both public and private lands. The environmental groups drafted a set of suggestions for the government about how to make the process function in a way that could bring them on board, but the government largely ignored these suggestions. “If a process isn’t designed to work, what’s the point of putting your time into it? You can always do other things with that time,” says Pachal.
Essentially the groups were concerned about what they perceived as the process’s lack of accountability and murky goals.
Major concerns with the discussions raised by the discouraged environmental groups centreed on the design of the consultation process and the commitment of the government to support the framework and to be held accountable. They wanted clearer goals and direction from the government before proceeding. According to David Kahane, a professor at the Univesity of Alberta who specializes in participatory democratic theory and practice, the design of the process is the most important factor in determining whether a collaborative process will work, particularly in terms of who gets to participate. “For me, the big variable in making these democratically legitimate or illegitimate is how carefully you think about the principles that are governing who you bring in and how transparent you are about that,” says Kahane.
According to Deleen Schoff, a spokesperson for Sustainable Resource Development — the government ministry in charge of the land-use discussions — despite environmental group concerns, there was significant participation in the process. “Over 3,000 Albertans did complete the workbooks, 110 stakeholders chose to have a voice in the process and served on the working groups, and we’re thankful that that has happened,” she says.
However, the fact that many participate in a process does not ensure a balanced outcome, according to Pachal, something she says she has seen from the provincial government in the realm of habitat protection for threatened species. “Say 80 per cent of the public wants to see caribou habitat protected and caribou recover,” she explains, “but that’s not necessarily represented at the table because you’ve got all the industry sectors… and if the selection of the stakeholders isn’t careful, you’ll wind up with the balance at the table being organizations for which wildlife habitat or conservation is not the priority of their organization,” she says.
Another priority that is constantly raised these days is the issue of water use in the province. The Conservatives moved on this front and established the Water for Life strategy that includes the creation of advisory water councils consisting of concerned stakeholders. While the move towards a collaborative approach to finding solutions can be viewed as a positive step towards greater democratic participations, some see fatal flaws in the organization.
“We’ve been involved in this pretty intimately for a couple of years now, and our unfolding view is that we’ve got to get back to basics with respect to governance. At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility for protecting our watersheds should lie with government. Particularly the provincial government,” says Danielle Droitsch, director of Bow Riverkeeper and a participant on the Bow River Basin Council.
While she supports the concept of Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils (WPACS) like the Bow Basin Council, which look into issues for specific watersheds, she thinks that it can act as a distraction and a means to stall effective change, rather than a powerful policy tool.
“So for example, WPACS don’t have any authority, they have no legal authority whatsoever to actually change what happens on the landscape. Their only power — and even that power hasn’t been defined anywhere near clearly enough — is an advisory capacity,” she says. “There’s absolutely nothing written down that says the government must listen to the WPACs.”
Kahane holds out a great deal of hope for the future of democracy and puts most of that hope in collaborative methods that engage citizens in the decision-making process, but he doesn’t think that Alberta is there yet. In the case of exercises for which there is no legitimate authority, like advisory bodies without teeth, he is cautious.
“It’s not clear what the democratic usefulness of those sorts of exercises are, because it’s at least always vulnerable to the suspicion that this is just window dressing. That you bring people together, they say lots of different things and then the government goes, ‘Oh, what we discovered was they love our policy,’” he says.
He is quick to point out, however, that when discussing new forms of democracy, it is always important to contrast with the system that is already in place, rather than aiming for an ideal right away. “You want to assess the democratic effect of these sorts of stakeholder processes compared to the kind of democracy we already have. I don’t think we have some glowing model of representative democracy in Alberta,” he says.
There is also the concern of compromise in any process that involves divergent interests coming together at the same table, something particularly worrisome for environmental groups. “When you get a whole bunch of people in a room, I see people compromising away what they feel is their bottom line simply to get the acceptance of an industry player at the table who has no real reason for making commitments that will cost them money,” says Droitsch, reiterating that it should be up to the government to institute solid bottom lines to ensure appropriate conservation of our waterways.
For Pachal, it all comes down to how you grind it all out. “They make the analogy to sausages; if you don’t have a good sausage machine, and you’re not putting good things into it, you get crappy sausages at the other end, and that’s what’s happening,” she says. “We’ve been getting crappy sausages — crappy policies and programs — the machine’s the wrong machine, and the wrong things are going into it.”
Don’t eat the grass — yet
Fight to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides has been a lesson in patience and politics for Robin McLeod
Originally published in FFWD March 13, 2008 by Drew Anderson in Activist Guide
If you walk through some city parks at certain times in spring and summer, you will see yellow signs dotting the ground, warning you of the chemicals sprayed on the grass, a nice colour contrast to the perfectly green lawns and an ironic backdrop to the geese unknowingly consuming the tainted grass. Though not in it as much for the geese as the people warned off by the signs, Robin McLeod, with the Coalition for a Healthy Calgary, has been fighting for a ban on cosmetic use of pesticides for a little over two years.
“The focus is that we feel these chemicals to make people’s lawns lovely and weedless and green are really unnecessary, and the potential for medical problems is significant in terms of endocrine disruption, neurological disorders, behavioural disorders, certain types of cancers,” says McLeod.
“It’s very similar to second-hand smoke — we as citizens have no control over that, except it affects us. You’re next-door neighbour is a weed fanatic, and so he’s out there doing a pesticide spray. I get that drift in my yard, my kids might be over there playing, what control do I have? I have none.”
McLeod is working to wrest some control back through her work in the coalition. This work has paid off, at least in terms of the slow-moving machinery of city hall. On February 25, a motion was presented to council asking it to consider a bylaw phasing out use of cosmetic pesticides. If all goes according to plan, the issue could be before a committee by June.
It has been a solid lesson in patience and city politics for McLeod, who has concerns about the report being written by those that support selective use of pesticides. She also worries about the shifting attitudes of aldermen.
“It’s very interesting, because prior to the election we surveyed all the candidates running for alderman and mayor — 11 of the 14 candidates that were elected as aldermen said they would support a bylaw phasing out cosmetic use of pesticides. It was a yes or no question,” she says, adding that if there had been a vote on the question on February 25, the ban would likely have been voted down. “What does that say about the aldermen?”
Originally from north of Toronto, McLeod had grandparents in Calgary, and found her way to the mountains of Lake Louise in 1978, before moving on to the city in 1981. Highly involved in activist issues for the last 20 years, she calls herself “half-legitimate” as a Calgarian, but has been working hard to prove her full status by watching out for the city she calls home.
As the director of civic affairs for the South Calgary Community Association, McLeod is also busy fighting for the character of her community and the diversity that makes it possible; something under threat in many established neighbourhoods.
“We are the busiest community in terms of development permits in the entire city of Calgary, so we have a chance to shape our city, shape our community and not be overrun by developers. They want to make a profit, but we’ve got to consider the community and keeping its character and keeping it a welcome place for all income levels, for all ages,” says McLeod.
She has also worked on issues to protect water quality in the lower Elbow River and prevent the degradation of Sandy Beach, River Park and the Britannia escarpment that line the Elbow valley in the city’s southwest, just under the reservoir.
Asked if it is as exhausting as it all sounds, she doesn’t flinch. “Somehow if you feel strongly about your opportunities and trying to make a great city, you find the energy.”
With that energy, McLeod and the Coalition will continue fighting for a healthier Calgary even if their pesticide ban is successful, likely focusing on other issues that affect the health of Calgarians
In the meantime, it is simply an issue of doing what activists do best: getting the message out to the public and the politicos.
“We’re not calling for a total ban of pesticides when it comes to threats to public health, we’re not touching the farming community, so it is really just toxins used to make your green grass look lovely. We need to let people know there are other ways of getting there. They may be a little more time-intensive, but in the long run it’s worth it,” she says.
Originally published in FFWD March 13, 2008 by Drew Anderson in Activist Guide
If you walk through some city parks at certain times in spring and summer, you will see yellow signs dotting the ground, warning you of the chemicals sprayed on the grass, a nice colour contrast to the perfectly green lawns and an ironic backdrop to the geese unknowingly consuming the tainted grass. Though not in it as much for the geese as the people warned off by the signs, Robin McLeod, with the Coalition for a Healthy Calgary, has been fighting for a ban on cosmetic use of pesticides for a little over two years.
“The focus is that we feel these chemicals to make people’s lawns lovely and weedless and green are really unnecessary, and the potential for medical problems is significant in terms of endocrine disruption, neurological disorders, behavioural disorders, certain types of cancers,” says McLeod.
“It’s very similar to second-hand smoke — we as citizens have no control over that, except it affects us. You’re next-door neighbour is a weed fanatic, and so he’s out there doing a pesticide spray. I get that drift in my yard, my kids might be over there playing, what control do I have? I have none.”
McLeod is working to wrest some control back through her work in the coalition. This work has paid off, at least in terms of the slow-moving machinery of city hall. On February 25, a motion was presented to council asking it to consider a bylaw phasing out use of cosmetic pesticides. If all goes according to plan, the issue could be before a committee by June.
It has been a solid lesson in patience and city politics for McLeod, who has concerns about the report being written by those that support selective use of pesticides. She also worries about the shifting attitudes of aldermen.
“It’s very interesting, because prior to the election we surveyed all the candidates running for alderman and mayor — 11 of the 14 candidates that were elected as aldermen said they would support a bylaw phasing out cosmetic use of pesticides. It was a yes or no question,” she says, adding that if there had been a vote on the question on February 25, the ban would likely have been voted down. “What does that say about the aldermen?”
Originally from north of Toronto, McLeod had grandparents in Calgary, and found her way to the mountains of Lake Louise in 1978, before moving on to the city in 1981. Highly involved in activist issues for the last 20 years, she calls herself “half-legitimate” as a Calgarian, but has been working hard to prove her full status by watching out for the city she calls home.
As the director of civic affairs for the South Calgary Community Association, McLeod is also busy fighting for the character of her community and the diversity that makes it possible; something under threat in many established neighbourhoods.
“We are the busiest community in terms of development permits in the entire city of Calgary, so we have a chance to shape our city, shape our community and not be overrun by developers. They want to make a profit, but we’ve got to consider the community and keeping its character and keeping it a welcome place for all income levels, for all ages,” says McLeod.
She has also worked on issues to protect water quality in the lower Elbow River and prevent the degradation of Sandy Beach, River Park and the Britannia escarpment that line the Elbow valley in the city’s southwest, just under the reservoir.
Asked if it is as exhausting as it all sounds, she doesn’t flinch. “Somehow if you feel strongly about your opportunities and trying to make a great city, you find the energy.”
With that energy, McLeod and the Coalition will continue fighting for a healthier Calgary even if their pesticide ban is successful, likely focusing on other issues that affect the health of Calgarians
In the meantime, it is simply an issue of doing what activists do best: getting the message out to the public and the politicos.
“We’re not calling for a total ban of pesticides when it comes to threats to public health, we’re not touching the farming community, so it is really just toxins used to make your green grass look lovely. We need to let people know there are other ways of getting there. They may be a little more time-intensive, but in the long run it’s worth it,” she says.
Calgary's National Portrait Gallery Gets Mixed Support
Originally published in FFWD April 17, 2008 by Drew Anderson in City
Some in the visual arts community are cautiously optimistic about the possibility of bringing the Portrait Gallery of Canada to Calgary, but City Council was tight-lipped about the matter heading into a behind-the-scenes meeting on April 14. The federal government had just provided answers to some outstanding city questions and extended the gallery competition deadline for the second time.
Nine cities across Canada were invited to bid on housing the collection, which features photographs, paintings and video art representing the faces of Canada — famous and unknown. The issue for Calgary’s politicians and artists alike is sustainability of funding and the appropriate use of scarce cultural resources.
“It’s an interesting idea, but I think that if the city is going to be looking at providing land for arts organizations, they should be looking at the roots, you know, what’s growing here,” says Melody Jacobson, operations co-ordinator for the Calgary Society of Independent Filmmakers. “It doesn’t have to be either-or — if it happens in a way that benefits the arts organizations that are in our community here, then I don’t see anything wrong with that.”
Having earlier denied another extension to the competition, the federal government announced on April 7, that the process will remain open until May 16. Public Works and Government Services Canada, the federal department responsible for the bid, also answered outstanding questions the city wanted addressed before proceeding.
Prior to the April 14 meeting, Robert Graham, co-ordinator of strategic projects with the city’s planning department, said there were concerns about the competition. “Which left us in a difficult situation, because we weren’t fully satisfied that we had a full understanding of the documents. Interestingly enough they did, in fact, in some cases amend their documents based on our questions, so obviously our questions were fairly serious.”
Graham was unwilling, however, to disclose which city questions were addressed, noting that some were not made public by the federal government. He did acknowledge there were still some question marks. “They chose not to answer a number of them — a number that the city considered very important.”
The meeting was held behind closed doors, and it is unclear what exactly was up for debate. Ald. Druh Farrell, who represents the downtown ward most likely to house a new gallery, couldn’t elaborate on the nature of the discussions outside of council chambers prior to the meeting.
The arts community is concerned about the inclusion of local flavour, and the assurance that community arts organizations and talent are not overlooked for funding. “Most visual arts organizations in Calgary are stretched for resources and are constantly fighting an uphill battle in terms of being able to financially support their institutions,” says Valerie Cooper, president and CEO of the Art Gallery of Calgary. “So I guess that’s where my caution would come…. If we had the infrastructure and the resources to support it appropriately, then it would be a good move.”
Farrell shares the views of the city’s creative class. “My concern, initially, was that if this was going to be our one grand gesture toward visual arts, that the portrait gallery is not where I would be putting my attention,” she says. “If it was part of a cultural facility, building cultural density, then I would be supportive, and that seems to be the direction that we’re going.”
Although it is not clear whether the question came from Calgary, the amended bid document from the federal government publicly answered a question on mixed-use buildings, stating that: “Stand-alone or mixed-use proposals, including those that contain other cultural users, will be considered.”
On the lips of many city artists and their supporters these days is the need for a contemporary art gallery, a glaring cultural omission in any metropolitan centre. “It will be important to Calgary in the near future to have a collecting modern, contemporary gallery in our city. That is more important, at this time, than the national portrait gallery coming to Calgary,” says Cooper. She is quick to point out, however, that the two are not mutually exclusive. “That’s why I think it would be important that a plan that includes perhaps both… would be a real solid one, because you could build upon those agendas quite nicely,” she concludes.
Some in the visual arts community are cautiously optimistic about the possibility of bringing the Portrait Gallery of Canada to Calgary, but City Council was tight-lipped about the matter heading into a behind-the-scenes meeting on April 14. The federal government had just provided answers to some outstanding city questions and extended the gallery competition deadline for the second time.
Nine cities across Canada were invited to bid on housing the collection, which features photographs, paintings and video art representing the faces of Canada — famous and unknown. The issue for Calgary’s politicians and artists alike is sustainability of funding and the appropriate use of scarce cultural resources.
“It’s an interesting idea, but I think that if the city is going to be looking at providing land for arts organizations, they should be looking at the roots, you know, what’s growing here,” says Melody Jacobson, operations co-ordinator for the Calgary Society of Independent Filmmakers. “It doesn’t have to be either-or — if it happens in a way that benefits the arts organizations that are in our community here, then I don’t see anything wrong with that.”
Having earlier denied another extension to the competition, the federal government announced on April 7, that the process will remain open until May 16. Public Works and Government Services Canada, the federal department responsible for the bid, also answered outstanding questions the city wanted addressed before proceeding.
Prior to the April 14 meeting, Robert Graham, co-ordinator of strategic projects with the city’s planning department, said there were concerns about the competition. “Which left us in a difficult situation, because we weren’t fully satisfied that we had a full understanding of the documents. Interestingly enough they did, in fact, in some cases amend their documents based on our questions, so obviously our questions were fairly serious.”
Graham was unwilling, however, to disclose which city questions were addressed, noting that some were not made public by the federal government. He did acknowledge there were still some question marks. “They chose not to answer a number of them — a number that the city considered very important.”
The meeting was held behind closed doors, and it is unclear what exactly was up for debate. Ald. Druh Farrell, who represents the downtown ward most likely to house a new gallery, couldn’t elaborate on the nature of the discussions outside of council chambers prior to the meeting.
The arts community is concerned about the inclusion of local flavour, and the assurance that community arts organizations and talent are not overlooked for funding. “Most visual arts organizations in Calgary are stretched for resources and are constantly fighting an uphill battle in terms of being able to financially support their institutions,” says Valerie Cooper, president and CEO of the Art Gallery of Calgary. “So I guess that’s where my caution would come…. If we had the infrastructure and the resources to support it appropriately, then it would be a good move.”
Farrell shares the views of the city’s creative class. “My concern, initially, was that if this was going to be our one grand gesture toward visual arts, that the portrait gallery is not where I would be putting my attention,” she says. “If it was part of a cultural facility, building cultural density, then I would be supportive, and that seems to be the direction that we’re going.”
Although it is not clear whether the question came from Calgary, the amended bid document from the federal government publicly answered a question on mixed-use buildings, stating that: “Stand-alone or mixed-use proposals, including those that contain other cultural users, will be considered.”
On the lips of many city artists and their supporters these days is the need for a contemporary art gallery, a glaring cultural omission in any metropolitan centre. “It will be important to Calgary in the near future to have a collecting modern, contemporary gallery in our city. That is more important, at this time, than the national portrait gallery coming to Calgary,” says Cooper. She is quick to point out, however, that the two are not mutually exclusive. “That’s why I think it would be important that a plan that includes perhaps both… would be a real solid one, because you could build upon those agendas quite nicely,” she concludes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)