Clear-cut logging in Ontario Farmland BAD FOR HUNTERS!!
- Thread starter knightcc
- Start date
A rampant wildfire isn't really a concern in SW ON.
Thats because of all the large clearcuts, called farmers fields.
People also have to remember that just because an area is clearcut doesn't mean its lost. If left alone the area will regenerate on its own, probably not as well as if you managed it properly, but it will grow back. Forests are extremely resilient and have a natural order to recovering from disturbance.
There is a Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program in Ontario that will give woodlot owners a tax break for managing their forests properly.
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166346.html
The only true lose of forest cover is if they cut it then convert it to something else, like agriculture or a subdivision.
There is a Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program in Ontario that will give woodlot owners a tax break for managing their forests properly.
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166346.html
The only true lose of forest cover is if they cut it then convert it to something else, like agriculture or a subdivision.
- Location
- Ottawa origanally Muskoka
Not when those vacant cleared acres get turned into row housing.
uummm....thanks...?
People want the government to control everything. Permit for this, permit for that. We needed a study done for every ditch we wanted to clean. Oceans and fisheries had to approve it. Species at risk is a load of crap, you want to take 50 of my acres out of production for some bird to nest. Or maybe introduce some elk to run wild over farmers hay fields and destroy their crops. I value my bush, l like having it, but that doesn't mean I force others to my will. Guys like this give away their rights and yours. Bring in ministries to regulate everyone to the political wim of the day. Time to say thanks but no thanks, I paid for it, it is mine to do with as I please.
Pikesroad: No argument there whatsoever. However should you wish to involve yourself in a programme that facilitated your bush management on your farm, would this not be an avenue for people would wanted to go that route? Nothing mandatory about it. I think we can agree the more bush the better when it comes to maintaining stable wildlife populations. If some farmer is willing to give up production to maintain his bush why not a financial incentive like say property tax relief for eg. to facilitate this type of land management? Just a thought. To me it is good use of taxpayer dollar as it is for the general good. I am not questioning your rights as to the use of your land just another option.
People have done that around here with conservation authority, planted fast growing trees for tax breaks. Then the CA went and changed their land use zoning and f3ck them for life. There is no working with the government, its like the mob, once your in you never get out.The market is the best regulator of these things. The problem is guys like the OP didn't want subdividing of farms. The next generation therefore cant buy a hundred for 1 million and put a house for 300000. In the end mega farmers buy it and destroy the exiting house and bulldoze the bush. These boomer farmers are bring it on themselves, soon they will reap what has been sown by sending the next generation to the cities.
New Camper
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lurking in the woods near SFRC.
{nods head}
I cringe at the cost of farm land: The cost prohibits the small guy from being able to imagine a small farm on which to produce most of lifes basic necessities. It seems the only way for a man to raise a family traditionally, he must inherit the place on which to start. The tin foil hat side of me tends to believe that the mass migration of people into cities is pre-meditated social planning for one reason: To cultivate dependencies and control... not unlike restrictive gun laws inevitably remove a nations ability to resist tyrants.
How are they f*(^$@d for life?
They lose control over the property from then on. The CA will consider the trees their property and if you what to do anything with that property here after you need CA approval. They will registar a different zoning for the area and forever more it will be undevelopable. If you go and sell the property the buyer is bound by the same rules and zoning. Its a deal with the devil. Look at the green belt, the government will do anything they like. Better to never get in bed with them because in the end you are the one that gets f#cked.
Ask any indian if they trust the government with their resources and land. That is your answer.
Ask any indian if they trust the government with their resources and land. That is your answer.
Same in my area. These guys in chatham-kent have got it good, the trees are their property but some want to give it away to the government to control. It would be like you asking the government to bring in mag round limits because you didn't like the look of 30 round mags or you don't use them so why should others be able to. These type of laws are the enemy of freedom loving individuals. Most are to uneducated to understand the ramification of their actions, they try to control the future and in turn destroy it.
The financial dynamics of farming have changed tremendously since my childhood. My cousin has bought five farms to try and stay in the game. His father got by on 180 acres while he is running 1000 acres with debt that is staggering. The equipment cost is huge. Corporate farming is a growing reality we must acknowledge. It will have a negative impact on the hunting experience as access disappears. The impact of losing stands of bush will not be positive either. Not a happy prospect for the outdoorsman. I wish you guys luck in S. Ontario.
Sounds like a Conservation Easement of some sort. There are legal rights and responsibilites on both sides of that. If someone signs up to have an easement on their land (to protect habitat, trees, whatever) and they are OK with the condition that the CA can change the "zoning" then it sounds like the owner of the land messed up. Who signs a legally binding agreement of some sort without knowing the "ins & outs" and what their rights are into the future?
As far as someone buying land that currently has an easement/agreement in place....once again, they get no sympathy from me. That information is clearly stated on a land title. Either fire your real estate lawyer for not pointing it out to you or give your own head a shake for not asking questions when you read that prior to the purchase.
It is not an easement it is a designation CA puts on your land at their will. eg wet lands. If they put wetlands on your property you are screwed. Period. Same with the trees, they dont have to let you know they are changing the designation, all they have to do is change it in their maps. Then when you apply for a development permit the township has to get approve from CA. If CA says no development then no matter what the zoning, no development. This has nothing to do with the title or deed, it has to do with the maps the CA develope and if you have them change you designation for a tax break, you will pay for it with loss of use. Never do anything with CA or organizations like ducks unlimited, they are not about protecting your land they are about using your land for their political purpose.
bigborefan
Regular
- Location
- Kawartha Lakes, ON
It's an uneasy struggle... Federal politics is mostly governed by economic forces related to a global economy. They can't deny that or escape from it. Provincial politics is more related to what the urban centers want and how they vote... with little concern or thought for "little people". Municipal politics is petty, pure and simple.
We live on a small piece of land with a single dwelling and a shed out back. It's owned 2/3rd's by my wife and I and 1/3rd by a bank. We are in our seventies, so there's little likely hood of 100% ownership. But it's "our home", at least for now. But, in the end that all depends upon God's will and the world's economy.
We need governments, and we need people in government with integrity and compassion, not those who "look out for" themselves first and then their "friends". Otherwise we have war between landowners and others. Everyone becomes their own "government" unless we have Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments to control and regulate certain essential matters for the common good. We also must have laws and officers of the law. We all know these things, and as Canadians with more affluence and freedom than 2/3rds of the rest of humankind, we still complain. If we didn't have governments and laws and those to enforce them, it would be constant war and everyone out for themselves first and last. We know that too, but we still complain.
I know a bit whereof I speak: A close friend is a retired Conservation Officer, but during the time he was an officer of the law he was also the owner of 100 acres (an old farm with a woodlot) just outside of town. A few years ago he was "caught" in defending the law (conservation law) along with some provincial police officers, standing between land owners (farmers) and other citizens who were trying to stop farmers from destroying a certain thorn bush on their properties that the Northern Shrike ("threatened species") used to impale it's food (bugs) on for "survival". It was a very SERIOUS situation, but thankfully no blood was spilled!
My wife, being a bird lover, and having raised hundreds of exotic canaries, got me into watching birds with her, and the best place to go was to the Conservancy where all this "hot" action was taking place between land owners and the Provincial Government. After matters had "cooled", I asked my friend how he felt having to uphold the law (even if it was stupid) as an officer and his feelings as a landowner. His answer was that his feelings were very mixed: On the one hand he was obligated to uphold the law and on the other he felt that landowners should have the right to use their land according to their own judgment as long as their "judgment" did not mean the unnecessary destruction of resources essential for the survival of wildlife and their habitat.
He was in a difficult position, as is any officer of the law at times, as well as land owners, conservationists and all citizens of a democratic society... which is far far better than a military dictatorship!
We need to be thankful that we live in Canada with it's, at times, uneasy politics rather than facing starvation in a refugee camp!
And I'm a hunter who hunts on one of those landowner's properties -- with his gracious permission.
Bob
www.bigbores.ca
We live on a small piece of land with a single dwelling and a shed out back. It's owned 2/3rd's by my wife and I and 1/3rd by a bank. We are in our seventies, so there's little likely hood of 100% ownership. But it's "our home", at least for now. But, in the end that all depends upon God's will and the world's economy.
We need governments, and we need people in government with integrity and compassion, not those who "look out for" themselves first and then their "friends". Otherwise we have war between landowners and others. Everyone becomes their own "government" unless we have Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments to control and regulate certain essential matters for the common good. We also must have laws and officers of the law. We all know these things, and as Canadians with more affluence and freedom than 2/3rds of the rest of humankind, we still complain. If we didn't have governments and laws and those to enforce them, it would be constant war and everyone out for themselves first and last. We know that too, but we still complain.
I know a bit whereof I speak: A close friend is a retired Conservation Officer, but during the time he was an officer of the law he was also the owner of 100 acres (an old farm with a woodlot) just outside of town. A few years ago he was "caught" in defending the law (conservation law) along with some provincial police officers, standing between land owners (farmers) and other citizens who were trying to stop farmers from destroying a certain thorn bush on their properties that the Northern Shrike ("threatened species") used to impale it's food (bugs) on for "survival". It was a very SERIOUS situation, but thankfully no blood was spilled!
My wife, being a bird lover, and having raised hundreds of exotic canaries, got me into watching birds with her, and the best place to go was to the Conservancy where all this "hot" action was taking place between land owners and the Provincial Government. After matters had "cooled", I asked my friend how he felt having to uphold the law (even if it was stupid) as an officer and his feelings as a landowner. His answer was that his feelings were very mixed: On the one hand he was obligated to uphold the law and on the other he felt that landowners should have the right to use their land according to their own judgment as long as their "judgment" did not mean the unnecessary destruction of resources essential for the survival of wildlife and their habitat.
He was in a difficult position, as is any officer of the law at times, as well as land owners, conservationists and all citizens of a democratic society... which is far far better than a military dictatorship!
We need to be thankful that we live in Canada with it's, at times, uneasy politics rather than facing starvation in a refugee camp!
And I'm a hunter who hunts on one of those landowner's properties -- with his gracious permission.
Bob
www.bigbores.ca
Last edited:
