Many questions

Dear editor:
Several media recently published a letter written by Janet Sumner, executive director of the Wildlands League, a special interest group located in Toronto.
Upon reading Ms. Sumner’s op-ed piece, we immediately were struck with many questions.
Ms. Sumner makes a bold claim in her opening paragraph when she asks the question “Will the sky fall for the forest industry because of the new Species at Risk Act?” To which she quickly provides her own opinion, “No.”
We are curious as to what qualifies Ms. Sumner to make this statement/assessment?
Ms. Sumner’s statement is particularly interesting given the positions previously expressed by both herself and her organization.
Firstly, during the development of the Endangered Species Act, Ms. Sumner participated in a public hearing process held in May, 2007. When asked by an MPP as to the purpose of the new act, specifically whether she shared the view that the legislation should protect species at risk, but also “ensure that we’re protecting the economic livelihood of thousands of people throughout this province, Ms. Sumner responded: “I don’t see this as the purpose of the act”—essentially stating economic considerations should be irrelevant in the development and implementation of this legislation.
Secondly, the Wildlands League approach to caribou is to remove large tracts of forest land from operations—permanently. In fact, her organization promotes removing several individual tracts of land, each measuring a minimum size of one million hectares.
To put this in perspective, all of southern Ontario is a little over eight million hectares. Also, one million hectares is greater than the average size of an entire forest management unit in Ontario.
How can anyone reasonably expect to remove numerous entire management units from production and not have an economic impact? This goes against the basic elements of common sense and fundamental economic principles.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Ms. Sumner’s organization, by their own admission through the Ivey Foundation Report, The Making of Ontario’s New Endangered Species Act: A Campaign Summary Report (December, 2007), was one of the special interest groups in southern Ontario that was able to manipulate government and take control of the development and implementation of the new Endangered Species Act.
In the Ivey Foundation Report, organizations including Ms. Sumner’s boast of how they were able to avoid “the constraints of reaching a compromise between many different, and often conflicting, interests,” including the forest sector and northern communities, and ensure the new legislation only reflected the priorities of special interest groups in southern Ontario.
Does anyone really believe such an individual or organization is looking out for the best interest of Ontario’s 230,000 hard-working families that depend on the forest for their livelihood?
Ms. Sumner’s letter is not limited to the issue of economics. She also highlights that “more species are being listed as in peril every year.” True, but what Ms. Sumner has failed to mention is that this trend is not related to forest management or forest activities.
According to information provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, since Sept. 30, 2004, 16 species have been newly-assessed as, or have had their previous status elevated to, threatened or endangered.
All 16 of these species are located in southern Ontario.
MNR information shows that the single greatest threats to these species are development activities and permanent land conversion. Not one of these species is linked to forest management on Crown (provincially-owned) land managed by the forest industry.
Not one of these species is located in the boreal forest.
Why has Ms. Sumner failed to mention this fact? Perhaps because it is far easier to try and export this issue to Northern Ontario than it is to tackle the issue of species at risk head on where the real problems exist—southern Ontario.
Perhaps it is because Ms. Sumner’s constituents and financial supporters reside primarily in southern Ontario, and to jeopardize livelihoods in that part of the province won’t help achieve her organization’s true goals—funding.
Whatever the reason, the opinions expressed in the editorial on June 11 left us gasping for fact and logic.
(Signed),
Iain Angus,
Chair, Ontario
Forestry Coalition