10 yrs ago, farmer fined $10000 for removing trees AROUND a Bald Eagle nest…

IMG_1303By Monte Sonnenberg, Simcoe Reformer
SIMCOE – Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett is looking for answers in the aftermath of this week’s outcry over the destruction of an eagle’s nest in west Haldimand on the weekend. The legislature in Toronto remains in recess while provincial Liberals pick a successor to outgoing Premier Dalton McGuinty. However, that hasn’t stopped Queen’s Park from buzzing about what some are calling an environmental travesty.

Barrett reported that the incident near Fisherville came up for discussion during a packed meeting Wednesday of the Progressive Conservative caucus. Barrett said no one was sympathetic to the Ministry of Natural Resource’s argument that the nest was destroyed to reduce the risk of bird mortality from a pending wind turbine project. “Why would they make a decision like that?” Barrett said. “I want to know who made this call. I want to find out if someone directed MNR to grant this permit and go against its legislation. My gut feeling is there is something seriously wrong here. I want to find out whether this decision was made outside the MNR.”

The Summerhaven wind project belongs to Nextera Energy Canada. The MNR quietly issued the company a permit to remove the eagles’ nest Dec. 31 because it was in an area slated for three turbines. The MNR didn’t post word of the permit on its website until after 5 p.m. Friday. The crew that took down the tree in question began work Saturday morning before sunrise. Read article

This entry was posted in Bats and Birds, Environmental, Ethics, Green Energy Act, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment Ontario, Ontario government, Wind Industry and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to 10 yrs ago, farmer fined $10000 for removing trees AROUND a Bald Eagle nest…

  1. 1957chev says:

    That farmer couldn’t afford to buy out our government.

  2. suspicious and dismayed says:

    This article does not reflect the calibre of an award-winning journalist like Monte Sonnenberg.

    Well done Monte, for recognizing the inconsistency in how MNR appears to regulate removal of eagles’ nests.

    But have you nothing to say about the fact that the health-related complaints coming from Norfolk citizens near Clear Creek are, in many cases, coming from homes located LESS THAN 550 metres away from the closest wind turbines?

    Or is this “inconsistency” not sensational enough for you to bother reporting on?

  3. ScepticalGord says:

    Did some thinking and now I’m just wondering …

    Over the years I have talked to more than a few MNR field staff about various IWT issues.
    Cognizant of the fact that they have to be careful of what they say, I still came away with the strong impression that NONE OF THEM were particularly in favour of IWT developments.

    So, playing the devil’s advocate, I’m going to say that it is possible the MNR staff that allowed this eagles nest removal, as a one-off shocker, did so knowing full well that this would be the kind of incident that would unleash the wrath of not only the usual anti IWT crowd but also that of the full-time fence sitters and the general public at large.

    If it was MNR’s intention to get the people upset enough to hit back at their political masters, then I would say this whole event was an unqualified success.

    Of course, time will tell if I should quit thinking and wondering …

    • suspicious and dismayed says:

      It’s a good idea to consider all possibilities.

      But there would be other ways for ministry officials to “blow the whistle.”

      So, if you’re right and this permit was issued in order to bring attention to the outrageous conduct within the ministry, then the MNR official would have to answer questions about why he sacrificed an eagle’s nest instead of using other mechanisms. “I didn’t want to lose my job,” is not a very admirable justification for those who are paying for this recklessness.

      • WillR says:

        “I didn’t want to lose my job,” is not a very admirable justification for those who are paying for this recklessness.

        Maybe you should go job hunting neither future or the past s what it used to be. Things are tough out there,,, especially with industry moving away…

  4. BIX says:

    Less than 550 m is bad enough but I know where there is an Industrial Wind Turbine constructed in 2012 with O m setback. TRUE! It sits in the parking lot of the CAW Family Education Centre in Port Elgin, Ontario. There are 117 families living inside the 550 m setback and a number of them barely 200 m away. The CAW members that are employed there have absolutely no safety setback zone and a children’s soccer pitch is 20 m away. The only answer as to why this was allowed has everything to do with corruption.

    “OPP ART, where are you?” I was very recently informed that conservative MPPs won’t contact the Anti Racket Bureau (ARB) because it would be too much of an insult for a colleague. ARB will investigate corrupt governments.

    Let’s try this; end all further comments with “OPP ARB, where are you?” Maybe the real people of Ontario can create a ‘movement’.

    • suspicious and dismayed says:

      Please expand: “MPPs won’t contact the Anti Racquet Bureau because it would be too much of an insult for a colleague.”? Who said that?

    • Ron Hartlen says:

      On the matter of setbacks:
      The CAW Turbine is 750 kW. Most of the Turbines we see, e.g. Shelburne area, are about 1.5 MW. Some of the newer Ontario projects will have 3 MW Turbines. Larger turbines will produce stronger infrasound, at lower frequencies, which will propagate further.
      And Ontario’s required setback is 550 m independent of size. That is totally irrational and not defendable!!
      If the industry and the leasing landowners can get some 3MW approvals jammed in before the Public catches on, there are fortunes awaiting.

  5. Pingback: Ontario’s Growing Grass RooTs Opposition To Wind Energy Getting More Raucus

Leave a Reply