New Agriculture-Wildlife Conflict Strategy in Ontario?

 
The Government of Ontario has developed strategies aimed at resolving conflicts between agriculture and wildlife in Ontario.  The conflict strategy is now up for public review and comment until April 11, 2011. 

Components of the strategy include:


• promoting producer awareness by developing and enhancing information resources;
• improving programs and tools for producers including compensation programs; and
• greater collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and stakeholders to provide a coordinated response.

Highlights of the Agriculture-Wildlife Strategy

• Enhanced information resources available to producers, such as:
o one-window information access for producers via a web site or information bundle; and
o improved knowledge transfer (e.g. workshops) for producers on best management practices.

• Improved programs/tools for producers such as:
o expanding the livestock damage compensation program;
o funding for strategic investments such as demonstration projects;
o continuing to manage wildlife populations (within sustainable limits) to help minimize agricultural conflicts by applying appropriate hunting seasons and quotas; and
o exploring improvements to coverage for wildlife damage to crops through Production Insurance.

• Greater collaboration between OMAFRA, MNR and stakeholders by creating an agriculture-wildlife conflict working group to ensure transparent implementation of the strategy.

A key part of the strategy will be to expand wildlife damage compensation programs for livestock. Changes to the Livestock, Poultry and Honey Bee Protection Act (LPHBPA) and regulation (R.R.O. 1990, 731, Application for Payment of a Grant) were made through the Open for Business Act, 2010. The changes provide the flexibility to update the wildlife damage compensation program for livestock to:

• allow an expanded list of eligible livestock species,
• expand the list of eligible wildlife species, and
• update the maximum values of compensation.

The LPHBPA also governs the liability of municipalities to compensate producers who have had livestock killed or injured by dogs.

Upon proclamation, the LPHBPA and Regulation 731 would be repealed and replaced with the Protection of Livestock and Poultry from Dogs Act. A new minister’s regulation will prescribe the maximum compensation values for livestock killed or injured by dogs under the Protection of Livestock and Poultry From Dogs Act for each livestock species named under the act. The methodology used to establish maximum compensation values for the new regulation will be developed through the proposed agriculture-wildlife conflict working group.

The new wildlife damage compensation program for livestock will be enabled through an Order-In-Council under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act. Details of the program framework is included in the additional materials section of this posting.

Purpose of Regulation:

The Ontario government is proposing an agriculture-wildlife conflict strategy as part of the implementation of the province’s Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Ontario (2008).

Public Consultation:

This proposal has been posted for a 45 day public review and comment period starting February 25, 2011.
All comments received prior to April 11, 2011 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in the notice and reference EBR Registry number 011-2677.

View the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry Notice at: Agriculture-Wildlife Strategy.

Ontario Minister of Agriculture releases decision on Ontario Pork

In February, I reported on a decision from the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal reinstating Ontario Regulation 419, which required hog producers to sell their hogs through a marketing board, Ontario Pork: Ontario Pork recovers its marketing powers.  The Tribunal decision is available at: Minnema v. Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Agriculture in Ontario overturned much of the Tribunal's decision.  Ms. Mitchell treads lightly in her reasons for the decision, saying:

Before proceeding with my decision, however, I would first like to point out that my decision should not be taken to mean that I do not have confidence in the Tribunal. Indeed, I believe that the Tribunal serves an important function within Ontario’s regulated markets. However, and as the Tribunal readily pointed out in its decision, the adversarial process is not necessarily well-suited for resolving complex policy-laden questions. Often, the parties present their favored position(s) without examining or providing information to capture the larger policy issues in which their dispute(s) arise. This, in turn, leaves the decision-maker in a difficult position.

Ms. Mitchell then goes on to restore the earlier policy decision to open up the marketing of hogs in Ontario beyond Ontario Pork:

I support the Commission’s open market approach for the Ontario Hog Industry. The Commission’s decision provides for a clearer path forward. It will help to create stability in Ontario’s Hog Industry by resolving an outstanding issue that has been ongoing for more than 10 years now.

I also think that it is important to note that my policy choice of adopting an open market system for Ontario’s Hog Industry does not prohibit the Board from offering marketing services to hog producers. It is clear from the submissions I received that some producers would prefer to continue to use the Board’s marketing services if an open market system were to be implemented. For example, either party to an agreement would still be able to rely on the Board’s expertise to review and provide comments on contracts if they wanted. Further, I note that the Board’s submissions contemplate the Board continuing to offer marketing services in the near term. And, I would encourage the Board to continue to offer its marketing expertise to Ontario’s Hog Industry.

The Board would, however, have to operate somewhat differently. For example, the Board would have to administratively separate its marketing side from its regulatory side to eliminate any potential conflict of interest and/or bias issues of being both the regulator and the regulated. Such a division would also have to include separating any fees the Board may receive for its regulatory functions from its marketing functions in order to ensure that the Board is not receiving an unfair competitive advantage over others who may want to offer marketing services. If the Board is to continue to market hogs, I expect that it will consult with the Commission on how best to separate its marketing function from its regulatory function.

Read the full decision at: Minister's decision.

Sales barn operator convictions termed a ‘coincidence’

Better Farming reports:

The manager of regulatory compliance in the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs denies that there has been a spate of fines against sales yard operators and calls it a “coincidence” that sales barn operators in New Liskeard and in Aylmer were convicted of similar offenses within a couple of weeks of each other.

“We don’t get a lot of incidents where they end up in court, that’s for sure,” Rodger Dunlop says.

On Feb. 25, Bill Stewart, manager of the Temiskaming Livestock Exchange was fined in the Ontario Court of Justice in Haileybury after pleading guilty to one count under the Livestock Community Sales Act and two counts under the Food Safety and Quality Act. The charges related to October and November 2009 incidences involving moving a sick or injured cow in an inhumane manner, failing to euthanize a fallen animal promptly and failing to dispose of other livestock within 48 hours of death.

Read the rest of the article at: Better Farming.  You can also find links to Better Farming headlines on the side bar of this blog.