Sir: Your page 13 headline for the Oct. 24 Chatham Voice reads “Tree conservation policy looms.” That’s meant to be sarcasm, right? You’re just kidding.
What started out as an urgent appeal for a moratorium on clear-cutting of woodlots last January has turned into a toothless policy proposal that won’t be in place until next April. That’s hardly “looming!” That’s the biggest Chatham-Kent retreat since the British ran up the Thames and were defeated at Fairfield!
The staff report that led to this decision was very informative about the benefits of tree cover, which were promptly ignored in the subsequent “policy” recommendation.
The municipality’s chief legal officer was asked to comment and made it clear without stating directly that a caution to abstain from clear-cutting that has no consequences attached can’t be expected to be effective. It’s like a speed limit with no fine for speeding.
Councillors keep saying that, “The majority of property owners are good environmental stewards.” So that’s how we got to just barely 4% tree cover – the lowest in Ontario?
Such statements may be politically correct but are factually suspect. The situation is a version of a common problem referred to as “the tragedy of the commons.” Tree cover is a community asset. When individuals are asked to voluntarily use community assets responsibly, the results are almost always bad.
And what’s with that 4% tree cover figure now being kicked around? When the discussion started the Chatham-Kent tree cover outside of the provincial parks and Moraviantown was assessed at under 3%. I’m told that improved technology has given a higher count.
Now if we could just find technology that would pick up every shrub and twig we might exceed 5% cover! Unfortunately minimum target cover based on that technology would also go up, so we would still be way behind.
There is a useful guide to developing tree ordinances at http://www.isa-arbor.com/education/resources/educ_TreeOrdinanceGuidelines.pdf. One of the key points made is that it is essential to set specific objectives. What is our target tree cover for 2020?
I was part of a group that planted 100 trees on a recent Saturday morning – an enjoyable and satisfying experience. However, since it would take about 600,000 trees to increase our Chatham-Kent tree cover by 1%, our efforts left us 599,900 trees short of even that modest goal. We obviously need a massive planting program if we are to make any real progress.
There was some feeling expressed at council that we should take credit for the trees at Rondeau, Wheatley Park, and Moraviantown and maybe even Walpole in our calculation of tree cover. Come on. The listing of the benefits of tree cover provided in the staff report should make it clear that most of the benefit comes from tree cover in the immediate vicinity, not 30 kilometers away. The Amazon rain forests of South America are important to our ecology, but we can’t count them as Chatham-Kent tree cover.
Will the new policy not only protect what we have, but move us significantly towards the 10%-minimum goal?
John Sigurjonsson
Chatham
