Scientists say fish habitat no longer protected under federal act

[drhu22]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...817/story.html

In our rush to be open to the world for business we are being screwed regarding protection of the environment and fish & game. I urge everyone who cares about this to start making yourselves heard to those in power.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by drhu22

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...817/story.html

In our rush to be open to the world for business we are being screwed regarding protection of the environment and fish & game. I urge everyone who cares about this to start making yourselves heard to those in power.

Do you have a link to the paper. Because most habitat has commercial and non commercial species in them protection passed on albeit indirectly depending upon the concerns.

Should industry spend extra money to protect habitat in a creek with illegally introduced carp? Or a minor loss of brook stickleback habitat?

If someone could post a detailed summary of the legislation along with the study that would be great.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Do you have a link to the paper. Because most habitat has commercial and non commercial species in them protection passed on albeit indirectly depending upon the concerns.

Should industry spend extra money to protect habitat in a creek with illegally introduced carp? Or a minor loss of brook stickleback habitat?

If someone could post a detailed summary of the legislation along with the study that would be great.

Industry should have to protect all habitat. Not interested in picking and choosing what they get to destroy.

[drhu22]

page 497....

http://fisheries.org/docs/fisheries_...es_current.pdf

[pikergolf]

Bits and piece's.

First, it will no longer be illegal to harmfully alter or disrupt
fish habitat. The revised act only renders it illegal to cause
serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational,
or Aboriginal fishery or to fish that support such a fishery. “Serious
harm” is defined by the act as “the death of fish or any
permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat” (Fisheries
Act 2013). A legal opinion prepared for the Environmental
Managers Association of British Columbia concluded that serious
harm does not prohibit the disruption or temporary alteration
of fish habitat, concluding that many situations prohibited
under the previous legislation will no longer be covered by the
revised act (Miller Thompson 2012). Another legal opinion concurs
(Ecojustice 2013).

When an individual or company applies for an application
to undertake an activity that requires authorization by the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans under Section 35(2) of the revised
FA, the primary—if not sole—responsibility for providing accurate
information and data rests with the applicant, rather than
with DFO habitat scientists and biologists. According to the new
regulations (section 8), it appears that the requisite identification
of “fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal
fishery,” or “fish that support such a fishery,” at the location of
the proposed work, will be the responsibility of the proponent/
applicant to identify. Notwithstanding DFO scientific advice in
this regard (Kenchington et al. 2012; Koops et al. 2012), one can
ask whether (1) each proponent will have to apply the DFO’s
scientific standards in identifying fish that support a fishery and
(2) who will determine the scientific validity and appropriateness
of each proponent’s assessment. Related questions include:
Who is ultimately responsible for ascertaining whether serious
harm is likely to occur? The proponent or DFO?

There does not appear to be a requirement for the DFO to
undertake an on-site inspection by DFO scientific staff to verify
information provided by an applicant. This change in responsibility
explains the 33% reduction in DFO staff responsible for
habitat protection reported by various Canadian media in 2012
(e.g., Langer 2012). This reduction in staff can only diminish
the scientific integrity and scientific credibility of DFO’s assessments
of applications for the authorization of activities under
35(2)(b) of the FA that will result in the destruction of fish and
fish habitat.

The regulations confirm that the revised FA will not protect
any particular species of fish. Rather, protection will be provided
only to “fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or
Aboriginal fishery” or “fish that support such a fishery.” This
means, to take one of many examples, that Largemouth Bass
(Micropterus salmoides) will be protected at a particular location
if, and only if, those Largemouth Bass are considered to be
part of a fishery at that location. Otherwise, Largemouth Bass
will not be protected.

[avb3]

Oh, I'm pretty sure that industries policies and codes of practices will deal any deficiencies that used to be covered by federal laws.

Just ask many of those who work in industry. They've been telling us that for years on this board.

[dodgeboy1979]

Most of our waters and fisheries have always been under provincial government jurisdiction, the fisheries guys were basically a second set of eyes costing tax payers more money for doing the job the province already did. Google alberta water act and have a read.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by dodgeboy1979

Most of our waters and fisheries have always been under provincial government jurisdiction, the fisheries guys were basically a second set of eyes costing tax payers more money for doing the job the province already did. Google alberta water act and have a read.

If the province is the first set of eyes we are in trouble, their eyes consist of, hey you guys doin' any bad chit there? No boss it's all good, top notch job.

[greylynx]

Why would the government pass such a draconian law in the first place?

Don't you think it would politically harmful given the number of Saint Suzuki Cool Aid drinkers running around?

[JamesB]

The feds took over provincial jurisdiction decades ago and are now leaving it. Why are the feds considered to be better at protecting anything than the provinces? They have not been stellar with the offshore fisheries on either coast. If you are concerned about your province then get involved politically and make changes. It is much harder trying to do that nationally to affect your own province.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Industry should have to protect all habitat. Not interested in picking and choosing what they get to destroy.

Lol

So no more new housing developments... Everyone can live with you?... No farming or grazing. No hiking trails or back country camping. No off road vehicle traffic. And so on.

You have to live in reality. People impact "habitat" everyday. What people can do it mitigate and manage.


By your definition if you widen a road and it disturbs an intermittent creek that may have 50 fathead minnows in it every 20 years then the road does not get improved. To be fair if the road disturbs gopher habitat it should also be banned.

[Sundancefisher]

What people don't see is how some in the government environmental bizz have become zealots with tunnel vision and power brokers.

Ask tons of people on the west coast who have land that can not be developed because DFO called a ditch fish habitat and intermittent stream fish habitat.

There are smell tests on both sides of this debate. I don't like seeing abuse of the intent of regulations regardless of which side you are on.

[leeaspell]

I blame it on quadders

[sjd]

As the links on here have shown, the Fisheries Act rollbacks were some of the worst attacks on environmental protection we've seen in Canada - and we hunters and fisherman let it happen with (with a few notable exceptions) barely a whimper.

The previous rules meant companies had to try and plan and avoid. They could still destroy habitat, but if they did, they had to compensate and invest in fish protection elsewhere. The system worked fine. Now, with most rivers no longer counting - no rules.

You know that big Obed mine spill. The whole creek that was trashed before the Athabasca - won't be any charges because its not a commercial fishery. Under the previous rules, polluters would have been held accountable. This helps us how?

A bunch of oil company lobbyists, looking to cut even more corners told the Cons to get rid of all the rules and Harper and co did in an omnibus bill.

Pretty sad, boys. Keep drinking the kool-aid that environmental protection is a left wing conspiracy.

Remember, the root of conservative is conservation. This gov will go down in history as the most anti-conservation/environment in history.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by sjd

As the links on here have shown, the Fisheries Act rollbacks were some of the worst attacks on environmental protection we've seen in Canada - and we hunters and fisherman let it happen with (with a few notable exceptions) barely a whimper.

The previous rules meant companies had to try and plan and avoid. They could still destroy habitat, but if they did, they had to compensate and invest in fish protection elsewhere. The system worked fine. Now, with most rivers no longer counting - no rules.

You know that big Obed mine spill. The whole creek that was trashed before the Athabasca - won't be any charges because its not a commercial fishery. Under the previous rules, polluters would have been held accountable. This helps us how?

A bunch of oil company lobbyists, looking to cut even more corners told the Cons to get rid of all the rules and Harper and co did in an omnibus bill.

Pretty sad, boys. Keep drinking the kool-aid that environmental protection is a left wing conspiracy.

Remember, the root of conservative is conservation. This gov will go down in history as the most anti-conservation/environment in history.

That is the saddest part, hunters and most fisherman are silent on the issue. Sad to see to the levels we have sunk to, industry apologists running around the board spewing their garbage without a challenge from people, environmentalists mocked and industry polluters given a shrug of the shoulder.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

That is the saddest part, hunters and most fisherman are silent on the issue. Sad to see to the levels we have sunk to, industry apologists running around the board spewing their garbage without a challenge from people, environmentalists mocked and industry polluters given a shrug of the shoulder.

You think that's bad, try voicing concerns about climate change.

I agree, hunters and anglers were the original conservationists. You would not know that by some of the loud voices on here.

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

That is the saddest part, hunters and most fisherman are silent on the issue. Sad to see to the levels we have sunk to, industry apologists running around the board spewing their garbage without a challenge from people, environmentalists mocked and industry polluters given a shrug of the shoulder.

I hear you loud and clear...
Industry seems to take precedence over everything now...
Its starting to feel like the hand basket has arrived.
Also, thanks for your condensation of that page.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by drhu22

I hear you loud and clear...
Industry seems to take precedence over everything now...
Its starting to feel like the hand basket has arrived.
Also, thanks for your condensation of that page.

Unless you work the regulations daily your statement is a guess just like global warming.

Habitat should be protected. However let the people making strict and unreasonable regs get mre and more embolden like the age we live in and before you know it boat launches will be banned, wading in streams banned, motor boats on lakes and rivers banned, back country fishing and hunting banned.

Some of the same people complaining about rights and freedoms forget that unreasonable people can make bad decisions.

Simplified regs are a good thing in general.

[sjd]

Sundance, do some reading.

The didn't "simplify" the regs, they changed the rules so 90% of the fisheries in Canada would no longer have any protection.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by sjd

Sundance, do some reading.

The didn't "simplify" the regs, they changed the rules so 90% of the fisheries in Canada would no longer have any protection.

God you people really need to read the regulations out there.

First suggestion is start with the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act then move on to the Water Act then just maybe then you will be ready for the Fisheries (Alberta) Act.

Should keep you busy for a couple weeks. Then come back here and say that rivers and waterways have no protection. Uggg.

These are provincial resources and as such have provincial legislation.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by sjd

Sundance, do some reading.

The didn't "simplify" the regs, they changed the rules so 90% of the fisheries in Canada would no longer have any protection.

No, they no longer have federal protection. Why the assumption that there is no protection just because the feds get their nose out of a provincial jurisdiction?

[sjd]

Where in the provincial regs are there any requirements to avoid fish habitat and compensate for damage? I'll make it easy for you - it's not there. Where in Alberta's rules is it illegal to deposit a substance that harms fish? It's not there either.

Alberta's fisheries act is all about fishing derbies and bag limits - absolutely nothing to do with Fish habitat protection.

Anyone who works in the patch knows the changes have been a gift to industry as Alberta's rules are nowhere near the federal rules and require virtually no protections.

Sherrit Coal is probably celebrating right now that the Feds can't touch them on the first 20km of creek they have likely destroyed and can only get involved once it hits the Athabasca River.

You've obviously got a philosophical objection to federal protection of the environment which is your right but don't kid yourself that fish habitat is/will be taking a beating under the new rules.

[JamesB]

http://environment.alberta.ca/01530.html

The Feds primary interest was commercial fishing. We don't have any in Alberta that I know of. The province is however very concerned about pollution of water and protection of fauna in spite of the chicken littles in the crowd. And again, if you are concerned get politically involved at the local level. Having the feds out makes it much easier to deal with problems in our own backyard rather than having someone in Ottawa attempt a one size fits all solution.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by sjd

Where in the provincial regs are there any requirements to avoid fish habitat and compensate for damage? I'll make it easy for you - it's not there. Where in Alberta's rules is it illegal to deposit a substance that harms fish? It's not there either.

Alberta's fisheries act is all about fishing derbies and bag limits - absolutely nothing to do with Fish habitat protection.

Anyone who works in the patch knows the changes have been a gift to industry as Alberta's rules are nowhere near the federal rules and require virtually no protections.

Sherrit Coal is probably celebrating right now that the Feds can't touch them on the first 20km of creek they have likely destroyed and can only get involved once it hits the Athabasca River.

You've obviously got a philosophical objection to federal protection of the environment which is your right but don't kid yourself that fish habitat is/will be taking a beating under the new rules.

Better go back to school and brush up on those reading skills. Try EPEA and the Water Act. Says nothing about fish habitat, but mentions the ENVIRONMENT a lot. You know not just water but everything to do with the ENVIRONMENT.

Like Ottawa is going to do anything in Alberta but try for more money from us.

More Provincial stuff when it comes to water. http://www.wetlandpolicy.ca/

[sjd]

"The province is however very concerned about pollution of water and protection of fauna"

Ha ha ha

With all due respect there wasn't a single factual statement in your post.

I wish I shared your opinion that getting rid of environmental laws will make things better.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Better go back to school and brush up on those reading skills. Try EPEA and the Water Act. Says nothing about fish habitat, but mentions the ENVIRONMENT a lot. You know not just water but everything to do with the ENVIRONMENT.

Like Ottawa is going to do anything in Alberta but try for more money from us.

More Provincial stuff when it comes to water. http://www.wetlandpolicy.ca/

Our provincial Gov. is so far up industries butt they know what they're eating before industry can even taste it. In Alberta, industry calls the tune not the gov.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by donkey oatey

god you people really need to read the regulations out there.

First suggestion is start with the environmental protection and enhancement act then move on to the water act then just maybe then you will be ready for the fisheries (alberta) act.

Should keep you busy for a couple weeks. Then come back here and say that rivers and waterways have no protection. Uggg.

These are provincial resources and as such have provincial legislation.

x1000

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Our provincial Gov. is so far up industries butt they know what they're eating before industry can even taste it. In Alberta, industry calls the tune not the gov.

Your comment proves you know nothing about the regulations in Alberta and are just on Justin Trudeau's team.

I know not a single instance of industry happy with the complexity of the regs. However they do recognize the need since while most companies are good a few need the regs more than others. People working in the oil patch are often huge outdoorsmen and therefore want a reasonable measure of protection.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Industry should have to protect all habitat. Not interested in picking and choosing what they get to destroy.

I am with you Pikergolf.

And if they can't make any money because they are unable to protect the environment then I say....git out of here.!!!!!

It is about time we start seeing flying monkeys in Calgary again, and not because of the NEP!!!!

[MrDave]

Originally Posted by JamesB

http://environment.alberta.ca/01530.html

The Feds primary interest was commercial fishing. We don't have any in Alberta that I know of. The province is however very concerned about pollution of water and protection of fauna in spite of the chicken littles in the crowd. And again, if you are concerned get politically involved at the local level. Having the feds out makes it much easier to deal with problems in our own backyard rather than having someone in Ottawa attempt a one size fits all solution.

Proof of arguing about something you don't understand. Sorry to say but there is a large commercial fishery in Alberta.

As for the powers in office caring about the flowers and animals, they aren't even looking. Can't see damage from the city limits, its OK with them. I know of places where the pollution is so bad you can't use a torch near the water wells. Just east of Rimbey is a tank farm sitting over top of the towns aquifer. I personally helped bury thousands of yards of contaminated waste under the top soil there. Does the provincial powers care? Nope.
If you haven't noticed, the province is using the " Shoot,shovel, and shut up method". Good luck explaining this in the future. Eventually the pollution is going to happen in I your neighborhood,then is it bad enough?