Long Point Causeway Project

Lpgar -- Actually, the "Frog Fence" is more properly termed a "Turtle Fence" as its main purpose is to prevent the needless deaths of Spotted, Blanding's, and Map Turtles, all of which are Federally and Provincially listed as threatened or endangered species ( Species at Risk = SAR ). As you may know, the Causeway has the 4th highest mortality rate of turtles ( deaths / KM ) of all roads for which there are data in NA. That's why the Federal and Provincial Endangered species branches have funded a lot of this work.

The sole purpose of the fence is to prevent roadkill and to that end, it has been highly successful as numbers of SAR, plus other species such as Snapping Turtles,toads, and frogs, killed on the Causeway have declined dramatically since its installation.

Every fisheries and waterfowl biologist who has considered the issue agrees that increasing water exchange between the Bay and the Big Creek NWA would be beneficial. That's based on experience and, yes, science and, thus, the installation of the large aquatic culverts under the Causeway should be supported by everyone who fishes / hunts at Long Point. ( And, for what it's worth, that was why I got involved in the LPCIP -- I do like ducks, pike, and LM Bass a bit more than turtles :))

Finally, you should be pleased to learn the County has approved plans to repair and repave Erie Blvd. on Long Point from the Causeway Restaurant to Old Cut Blvd. in 2014. See, you may not be as important as a turtle, but you're still important. ;)
 
Hello Canvasback,

I have just read the latest FOCAS newsletter that addressed some of the issues being discussed here.

You stated "the Environmental Review Panel dismissed them as irrelevant, impractical, and illogical. It was because of the nonsense raised by FOCAS that the cost of the EA was higher than expected and I think that was at least part of the reason that Norfolk County decided to kick in $60K". Apparently their concerns were dismissed due to a technicality with their presentation ... something that I have often seen within the Federal Government rather than dealing with the honest "intent" of the submission. I have the impression that this project was and is being "pushed through" regardless of any concerns ... financial or otherwise. The $60,000.00 is a contradiction to the "No cost to Norfolk taxpayers" claim.

You also stated "the Federal and Provincial Endangered species branches have funded a lot of this work". Where did they get their funding from? I suggest from the Canadian taxpayers (in part) and that is also a contradiction to the "No cost to Norfolk taxpayers" claim.

I wonder what other contradictions, half-truths, misinformation or perhaps even outright lies may exist regarding this project.

Jerome
 
Buddy Boy -- for a guy who claims to be highly educated, you sure could fool me! Before you come on here spouting your regurgitated drivel from FOCAS that their concerns were dismissed due to "a technicality", why haven't you asked them for a copy of the EA report? There was no technicality involved -- the FOCAS' cockamamie idea to find nests of endangered turtles, take the eggs, hatch them ( somewhere ) and then release them into the marsh when the turtles were 1-year-old, was seen by the Provincial, not Federal, MoE as being just as stupid as it looks as I write this. And, BB, who was gonna pay for that? Certainly, not anyone who understands turtle biology.

Of course, the Federal and Provincial Endangered Species Branches get their $$ from CDN taxpayers and whether you like it or not, those Branches are there because of Federal and Provincial SAR legislation and the $$ has been allocated in Federal and Provincial budgets -- it will get spent somewhere.

We who love and enjoy Long Point because it is such a wonderful natural area should be happy that some of that money is being spent to keep it that way.

You wrote: "I wonder what other contradictions, half-truths, misinformation or perhaps even outright lies may exist regarding this project." You should know, BB, because you've been spreading them. Keep reading the FOCAS newsletters and you're bound to see a lot more of them.

Meanwhile, instead of staring at ducks out of your taped-up windows, why don't you go duck hunting -- might even clear your mind. :D
 
I agree, BB, but it was you who accused a helluva lot of very honourable people of spreading half-truths and misinformation. When you apologize to all of them on this public forum where you slandered them, I'll have some sympathy for your delicate feelings.
 
Hello Canvasback,

I have to correct you on a few points:

1) The word "slander" refers to the deliberate verbal dissemination of false information regarding an individual (or individuals) whereas the word "libel" refers to the deliberate written dissemination of false information regarding an individual (or individuals).

2) Although you have incorrectly suggested that I have "slandered" numerous individuals I have neither slandered nor libeled any individual with the following comments:

a) I stated "I have the impression that this project was and is being 'pushed through' regardless of any concerns ... financial or otherwise". This is an accurate statement as it describes my perception of events regarding this project.

b) I stated "The $60,000.00 is a contradiction to the 'No cost to Norfolk taxpayers' claim" with reference to Norfolk County's recent $60,000.00 contribution to this project (as previously reported by a Simcoe radio station and confirmed by you). This is an accurate statement as the $60,000.00 contribution is a contradiction to the above claim as stated in the pamphlet that was recently distributed by Canada Post.

c) I stated "I suggest from the Canadian taxpayers (in part)" with reference to the source of funding for both the Provincial and Federal Endangered Species Branches. This is a suggestive statement only ... a suggestive statement confirmed by you.

d) I stated "that is also a contradiction to the 'No cost to Norfolk taxpayers' claim" with reference to the issue described in (c) above. This would be an accurate statement pending my suggestive statement being confirmed ... as it was by you.

e) I stated "I wonder what other contradictions, half-truths, misinformation or perhaps even outright lies may exist regarding this project". This is an accurate statement as it only describes further potential concerns regarding this project. Please note the use of the words "wonder", "perhaps" and "may" within my statement. I was merely questioning whether or not there may be additional areas of concern regarding this project.

I agree with the saying "the devil is in the details" and one must read my statements carefully before making any accusations of slander or libel against me.

Unfortunately it would appear that someone representing this project either had accepted a contribution from Norfolk County without a request for it or had requested a contribution from Norfolk County and then accepted it. Either way this project can no longer be claimed to be at "No cost to Norfolk taxpayers" as claimed within the distributed pamphlet.

Consequently I believe that there is no just cause to apologize for the statements that I have made.

Jerome

PS I understand that the cost to benefit ratio for the original Long Point Causeway Improvement Project over a thirty (30) year period (estimated life span of the infrastructure) was $16,000.00 per turtle saved. This did not include the maintenance cost over the thirty (30) year period which would have increased the cost per turtle saved.

PS I was not personally receptive to the suggestion of raising turtles in pens but this option has apparently been employed elsewhere with success and I understand that it was only presented as an option to consider in light of the cost to benefit ratio described above.
 
As spokesperson of FOCAS I've been asked by some of your members to set the record straight on a few points that appear throughout this thread. First, to the question of the EA decision and the 'technicality' on which it was based. The FOCAS alternatives were not overturned for lack of valid scientific reasoning. They were set aside because they didn't address the problem of road kill. The 83 research articles quoted by FOCAS proposed solutions to the decline in reptilian populations, but not road kill by itself. The problem was so narrowly defined by the County and the LPCIP that the Minister couldn't agree to the FOCAS suggestions because they didn't deal with road kill.

He did however see the merit of several of our arguments about the shortcomings of the ecopassages plan. That's why there were very stringent conditions placed upon the County before construction could begin. It is true that if FOCAS had not turned a critical eye to the scientific process being used to promote the ecopassages, they would have slipped through without the proper scrutiny and would have saved the LPWBRF time and money. It is our view that being thorough and rational when it comes to the expenditure of federal, provincial and municipal tax dollars is not unreasonable.

If any members are interested in the details of our submission or the science that supports it or the actual letter from the Minister, I invite you to check out the FOCAS website at http://www.longpointfriendsofcauseway.ca/. We're not really interested in trying to change anyone's mind in this discussion because what goes on between our ears has very little impact on biological and economic reality. All civilized conversation, be it challenges to our position or questions about it, will receive a response. Uncivilized name-calling will be ignored.

Looking forward.
 
I have followed this discussion for several days and would simply invite anyone wanting accurate information about the Causeway Project to visit www.longpointcauseway.com. I am also providing some specific responses to some of the statements posted on this site.
The construction of the three ecopassages, which will begin next week, received ALL of the required approvals and permits under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the federal Species at Risk Act, Ontario’s Endangered Species Act and several other regulations administered by organizations such as the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Long Point Region Conservation Authority, Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In addition, we carried out several studies to obtain these permits and approvals. The cost of all of this work was more than $150,000, about one-third of the project’s entire cost.
I would also challenge statements made by an anonymous spokesman for the Friends of the Causeway Association. The Ministry of the Environment did not accept FOCAS’s arguments against the ecopassages because they did not address the issue of road kill, the primary threat to Long Point’s reptile population according to all of the experts we have consulted. The so-called alternatives proposed by FOCAS were not supported by science relevant to Long Point.
I would also challenge that statement that the conditions imposed on the project by the MOE were “stringent”. Far from it. They simply required that a fencing plan and monitoring plan be provided to MNR and that all other required approvals and permits be secured. We have always planned to provide a fencing plan to link the existing fencing with the new ecopassages and to monitor the use of the ecopassages by wildlife. Likewise, we have always intended to obtain all of the proper approvals for the work. The so-called “ scrutiny” by FOCAS had absolutely nothing to do with the conditions set out by the MOE or our response to them.
Lastly, please note that all of the work that we have completed to date over the past five years has indeed been at no cost to Norfolk County property taxpayers because we have raised more than $890,000 from other sources. The County’s recent contribution of $58,000 is intended for the ecopassages construction work that has not yet started.
Again, I would urge people to visit www.longpointcauseway.com for more information. As well, many of the documents relating to the EA and various approvals for the project may be obtained from Norfolk County, as they are a matter of public record.

Rick Levick
Coordinator
Long Point Causeway Improvement Project
 
Reply from FOCAS
While Rick's reply above invites the reader to believe his account of the contents of the EA decision, I invite the reader to believe neither his nor my account. Instead, the reader should go to the original document on the FOCAS website and make up your own mind about what the Minister said. Specifically, I invite the reader to read the FOCAS alternatives and the supporting independent research. I can respond to specific questions or challenges that others might present, but I can't and won't respond to the generalizations that are proposed without corroborating evidence by Rick. He is entitled to his view, but I challenge him to cite just one scientific study to back up the LPCIP claim or to refute that of FOCAS. Simply saying that such studies exist doesn't cut it in the world of science.

I am not anonymous. I am

Stu Ross, (Spokesperson for FOCAS)
 
I see no further need to provide evidence to or debate with Mr. Ross and his group because the installation of the ecopassages has been approved by all of the regulatory authorities I noted earlier based on sound science and the hard work of the Long Point Causeway Improvement Project, Norfolk County and its consulting engineers, Stephen Burnett and Associates.

Construction of the ecopassages is currently underway as I write this post. I'll let that fact speak for itself.

Rick Levick

PS to members of the LPWA. It was our initiative to invite the LPWA to join us in applying for funding from the US Fish and Wildlife Commission for our work on Causeway Project and the LPWA's excellent work on restoring the Crown Marsh. This resulted in $15,000 US being provided to the LPWA to help pay for this year's dredging work in the Crown Marsh.
 
I was at the point this week and saw the passages they were installing and couldn't help but wonder what the long term prospect is for them. Who will be responsible for keeping them clear of debris and dirt?
 
Dear Mr. Rick Levick:

I would like to thank you for answering my original question "I was hoping that someone from the LPWA Board of Directors would be able to enlighten me as to where we as an organization stand regarding this project ... this very expensive project" with your recent PS statement "It was our initiative to invite the LPWA to join us in applying for funding from the US Fish and Wildlife Commission for our work on Causeway Project and the LPWA's excellent work on restoring the Crown Marsh".

However I wonder why this was not conveyed to us before now.

I also stated "I understand that Mr. J. Malcolm (President, LPWA) has attended at least one (1) meeting regarding this project but I was told that he had stated that he was attending the meeting as a private individual".

Unfortunately I perceive a contradiction here.

Sincerely,

Jerome Katchin, D.V.M.
Port Rowan, Ontario
 
Hey, Buddy Boy -- give it a rest! The ecopassages are being installed, FOCAS lost, the LPCIP and the environment won. As for what you understand, or don't, and what you "perceive", nobody gives a d*mn!
 
quote:
Originally posted by canvasbacksca

Hey, Buddy Boy -- give it a rest! The ecopassages are being installed, FOCAS lost, the LPCIP and the environment won. As for what you understand, or don't, and what you "perceive", nobody gives a d*mn!



Best post so far!
 
quote:
Originally posted by tinboater

I was at the point this week and saw the passages they were installing and couldn't help but wonder what the long term prospect is for them. Who will be responsible for keeping them clear of debris and dirt?



In exchange for his taxes not going up by $0.25/year, that brilliant mathematician and Keeper of the Causeway, Buddy Boy, has agreed to slither thru them every other week and clean out the turtle and snake $hit. If, perchance, he finds a turtle egg, instead of eating it, he's agreed to take it to the FOCAS turtle facility, which, appropriately enough, is in Frogmore. There, it will be hatched and the "turtling" will be raised on groobies that he and his fellow FOCAS members will catch for it. Once it is 2 years old, Buddy Boy will gently release it into one of the ecopassages and then take bets on which way it will go. Looks like a win-win proposition to me especially as BB has also agreed that he will cease and desist from posting further inane comments on Stomps. :D
 
quote:
Originally posted by jiminyBlueBill

What does the "S" stand for in FOCAS? Just wondering...




Shot in the dark here....

My guess would be that as it ends in Association, they use "AS", becasue FOCA does't have a ring to it. I don't think the extra S means anything.....
 
Hello Canvasback,

If that is the best and only manner in which you can respond to my original question and subsequent comments then that is most certainly a "sad" situation.

You cannot "bully" me with your sarcasm. Although some individuals (such as "tinboater") may be impressed with such tactics I can assure you that others are not.

Jerome
 
Its very clear about one thing that this type of( BS,mud slinging ,save the world crap)is goin on all over Canada it has turned in to full time jobs for people with schoolin !! And the Govt lives off it !! Win Win Win for all involed !! Fact of the matter is u are not going to make a rats ass of diferents to the toads,frogs ,turttles,rats ,beaver, birds ect ect ect......unless u keep man out !!! as the people with money like the water front way to much to stop building new homes or roads or yatch clubs these type of projects will roll along !! So just sit back drink your beer and do as the smart people and govt tell u !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
✖
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Advertising is what keeps Channel 6-8 on the air. To this end, please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker. If you would prefer an ad-free experience, but would still like to help support site operations, please consider making a donation.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks