This is the last submittal I sent to the Chronicle Journal, prior to the election. I honestly don't know if it was published (I believe the previous two were) as I really don't care for that newspaper as it regurgitates a lot of Toronto Star OpEds as well as some from the Washington Post. Neither, in my opinion, give balanced reliable commentary. Note that unfortunately in the riding I live in they did not "choose wisely" but instead re-elected Patty Hadju, the cabinet minister who right after making it to cabinet approved over a million dollars in OFFICE RENOVATIONS!

Choose Wisely

The Federal election will soon be on us and at that time you will have the ability to cast your ballot for the candidate or party of your choice. As the person elected from your riding will be representing hopefully your best interests and of everyone else in the riding one needs to choose wisely. 

 Unfortunately to get good unbiased information with which to make an informed decision can be a daunting task, helped in no part by traditional media sources doing their best to show their biases rather than exposing the strengths and weaknesses of each party and their respective candidates.

So, what can a person do to be better informed? The obvious one is to try different sources. For a national perspective read also the Globe and Mail and the National Post. On line check out the Post Millennial, Rebel Media and C2C Journal as several examples. Go to YouTube to track down videos of actual events so that you can see for yourself what actually happened. 

A powerful tool available to you is to think through what the potential consequences are. Each party and their respective candidates are trying to paint themselves in the best light possible but not all facades are true. Be critical and skeptical and evaluate policy statements. 

For example, the subject of man-made climate change/global warming. Currently most of the parties are promoting some form of “transitioning from fossil fuels”. Consider how we keep our homes warm in the cold Canadian winter; primarily with natural gas, propane and fuel oil, all fossil fuels. Also keep in mind that affordable food at the grocery store is thanks to cheap transportation from countries where growing conditions are much better than ours, all powered by fossil fuels. Think about how life as we know it would be without fossil fuels by considering how they have given us everything we hold dear; warmth, abundance of affordable food, clothing, etcetera. Now consider the impacts so far of the “green economy”. There is a reason why the “road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Another related example is the mantra “we are for jobs”. Killing the fossil fuel industry and making every other industry that uses fossil fuels to be less competitive on the world stage is job killing. Why do we need to curtail our fossil fuel industry for environmental and ethical reasons while we import from other countries with far poorer standards than ours unimpeded, again killing local jobs? Here in Northwestern Ontario our economy is dominated by resource industries that are barely economic and are made even more marginal with every tax increase. The “green economy” is a false one and no where has it ever delivered the benefits those who promote it have said it would. Instead more and more foreign-owned companies have closed their Canadian subsidiaries and moved elsewhere.

Oh, but the rich will pay! Put yourself in their shoes. Would you stay in a country that treats you unfairly just because you have more money than others? Would you not just leave that country and go somewhere else, one where you are welcomed as any money you spend there will be in support of the local economy? You see, it really isn’t that hard to evaluate what is best for our country and ultimately ourselves. Being able to vote gives you great power but that comes with great responsibility. Choose wisely.

Caribou, where art thou?

The next submittal I made to the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal was a slightly edited version of a previous post with the same title in an effort to try and illustrate how environmentalists are leading us in the wrong direction.

Caribou, where art thou?

According to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Boreal Caribou (formerly referred to as Woodland Caribou) occur in naturally low densities in mature boreal forest habitats. The Boreal Region is within the sub-arctic and cold continental climate zones, is characterized by long, severe winters and short summers. Vegetation is dominated by conifers. With rare exception, there are few major population centres in this region and very little infrastructure.

Based primarily on observation rather than any scientific studies it has been speculated that the Boreal Caribou range has receded northward to approximately the 50th parallel within Ontario and Quebec with some isolated southern populations such as the Slate Islands.

Gord Miller, a former Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, in his 2010/2011 annual report commented that for woodland caribou "to date only crude population estimates and delineation of herd ranges have been publicly available". This bears the question, why? And if all we have are "crude estimates" then how were they identified as an endangered species?

When the population is sparsely distributed how does one get a reasonably accurate census? Similarly, back at the end of the 19th century, which is the time that most references to their former range refer to, how could they have been observed with confidence? The only access at that time in Northwestern Ontario was either by canoe routes or the recently established CPR. Even today occasional sightings are made far south of what is considered their current southern limit. Could those sighting from over a century ago have been of transients?

Even I have speculated that the Boreal Caribou may have moved north to where there is no interaction with humans. But on reflection that does not explain for example the herd in the Onaman Lake area that is south of the CNR which one would assume would be the southern boundary if that premise is true.

I have tried to find reliable research on Boreal Caribou and unfortunately there is essentially none prior to 2000 and very little since. Yet we see articles with statements such as "Canada’s woodland caribou herds and the habitat they need continue to decline" yet no supporting evidence is given. This is further exasperated by what little "data" is presented. For example, in 2017 it was reported that "none of Canada’s 51 caribou herds is growing. Twenty are in decline and not enough is known about 21 of them to even estimate their population trend".

So, none are growing? So what? where in the natural world does a species, other than man, continue to have its population "grow" when it is always under stress from disease, weather and predation? A well documented example is the relationship between snowshoe hare and lynx. Thanks to very good records kept by the Hudson Bay Company due to the fur trade we know that snowshoe hare population is not constant and in fact is cyclical between a population peak and collapse. Similarly, the lynx population rises and falls in sympathy with the hare population although with a bit of a lag.

Is there a similar relationship between wolves and ruminants such as caribou? What about predation by black bear? That is the natural world in action and while we have hard data in the case of hares and lynx, we have none for ruminants, especially caribou, other than hearsay.

The Canadian authour Farley Mowat first achieved notoriety in 1952 with his book "People of the Deer". He documented how the inland Inuit suffered extreme hardship due to the inexplicable collapse of the local barren land caribou herd. Again, other than pure speculation, no reason could be determined why the caribou numbers collapsed nor why they eventually recovered.

In 2017, the Chronicle Journal published a series of articles in their special supplement "The Outdoors Guide" written by Tim Timmermann, a retired biologist formerly with MNR, titled "Where Have all the Moose Gone?". It is interesting to read as it documents the change from caribou being the dominant ruminant in Northwestern Ontario around 1900 to them being supplanted by moose. This is based strictly on eyewitness reports but what it does establish is that population numbers of wildlife vary and, as no research has been done, only speculation can be made as to the possible reasons. But he does make a good summary statement: "Change is a 'way of life', and little remains the same for any length of time. Such is the case of many wildlife populations that 'ebb and flow' over time. Moose [and caribou] are no exception and densities have and will fluctuate with passing years".

When it comes to caribou there is only one thing certain; we know very little about the species and only in the current century has much research been done. So why is a species that is found right across the width of Canada with its range pretty well defined by the northern half of the boreal forest a) considered "endangered" and b) the source of public policy when there is no evidence that human contact has had a negative impact on its range, both real or imagined?

In summary the real problem is the prevalence of junk science, such as that used to substantiate “solutions” for a non-existent problem. Such junk science is used to fool just about everyone who is not a scientist and even many who are into believing this nonsense. Unfortunately, the victims of the government policies enacted to fight a non-existent foe are we, the general public. We need to take a stand now against the environmentalists who spew this junk science to our collective detriment!