Water – what could matter more? 625 scientists take stand to protect

Don’t gut Fisheries Act, scientists urge Harper
By Gloria Galloway Globe and Mail Thursday, March 22, 2012
More than 600 Canadian scientists, including some of the county’s leading experts in environmental protection and animal research, are asking Stephen Harper to abandon plans to remove habitat protections from the federal Fisheries Act.
Full story

Text of letter

Dear Prime Minister Harper,
cc. Honorable Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
re. Potential amendments to section 35 of the Fisheries Act
We, a group of Canadian scientists, including many of Canada’s most senior ecologists and
aquatic scientists, are writing out of concern that habitat protections are about to be removed
from the Fisheries Act. This would be a most unwise action, which would jeopardize many
important fish stocks and the lakes, estuaries and rivers that support them. We urge you to
abandon this initiative as it is currently drafted.
Based on media reports, we understand your government’s desire to speed up the approval
processes for large economic development projects. We believe, however, that the weakening of
habitat protections in section 35 of the Fisheries Act will negatively impact water quality and
fisheries across the country, and could undermine Canada’s attempt to maintain international
credibility in the environment.
Habitat is the water or land necessary for the survival of all species, including fish. All species,
including humans, require functioning ecosystems based on healthy habitats. The number of
animals and plants of any species that can be supported is in direct proportion to availability of
habitat, which supplies food and shelter. Habitat destruction is the most common reason for
species decline. All ecologists and fisheries scientists around the world agree on these
fundamental points, and the Fisheries Act has been essential to protecting fish habitats and the
fisheries they support in Canada. Weakening habitat protections will make Canada look
irresponsible internationally.
In the case of fisheries, siltation of spawning beds and contamination of fish rearing areas are
two of the most common impacts of human activities. We should therefore be strengthening, not
weakening the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act (and other environmental laws,
including the Species at Risk Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act), in order to protect
our dwindling fisheries and species at risk.
We further understand that your government proposes that measures to protect fish habitat will
only apply to “fisheries of economic, cultural and ecological value”. This makes no sense. All
species are of ecological value, a fact recognized by the current act. For example, some of our
most economically and culturally valued fish species feed upon minnows and so-called “rough
fish” species, which allow them to survive and grow.
In summary, if your government wishes to change the wording of the Fisheries Act or other laws
affecting the health of Canada’s ecosystems, we recommend that you ensure that any new
legislation be based on the best science available. It is critical that any changes do not jeopardize
the environmental support system on which we and future generations depend.
Sincerely,
D. W. Schindler
and 624 others