First, let me say that ALL…

First, let me say that ALL Crown Lands belong to the people of Ontario, and it is not up to any politician in any government to decide to declare any particular lands 'surplus to requirements'. There is no such thing as 'surplus lands' on a finite planet; consequently, such lands should never be sold. Leasing might be an option.

I do have real concerns about this ‘re-labelling’ of northern Ontario lands in order to turn what is natural forests (upon which woodland caribou and other native species depend for their survival) into ‘pasture’ for how many thousands of beef cattle?

A 2017 TVO episode about this same topic noted, “Since 2005, the province’s beef farmers have shrunk their operations nearly 25 per cent, losing more than 100,000 cattle to FICKLE GLOBAL MARKETS and rapidly rising land costs in southern Ontario. For years, farmers have lobbied for a fix, and last week the Liberals announced one: they’ll release Crown land to northern farmers, allowing them to expand their properties to 2,000 acres.”

The key point here is “the appeal of northern farmland is a mix of push and pull: farmland in southern Ontario is increasingly expensive, locking out a generation of new farmers who can’t afford it.” In other words, the best farmland in southern Ontario, which tends to be SOUTH of Barrie, has been frittered away on unwise, congested (and still expanding) development.

I realize that livestock operations do not rely on the best farmlands, but they should still be located closer to local markets. In this case, one justification for ‘Northern Beef’ is the rapidly increasing global human population, described as a possible additional two billion people, who are expected to develop a taste for beef consumption. I think Canada … and Ontario … should be focusing on using the best farmlands for farming and providing food right here.

At the same time, northern forests should be spared from cutting, bull-dozing, disking and burning (as recommended in the Land-Clearing Guide, directly accessible as a link through BeefNorth’s website). The Land-Clearing Guide, outlines how trees will be cut, bulldozed into windrows, and later set on fire. This guide is included as an attachment, and it clearly demonstrates how forested areas will be converted to grasslands for cattle. The production of CO2 emissions and soot from all this recommended burning ought to raise some questions. And how will these cattle be transported to slaughterhouses ... and markets? How will animal waste from any cattle operation be stored and treated?

Northern Ontario is already under pressure from logging and mining interests. It is time to retain remaining Ontario’s forests since they represent the natural landscape, while performing various essential ecological functions, including oxygen production and carbon sequestration, while providing wood fibre when forests are selectively and sustainably harvested.

If these forests are replaced by pasture, those pasture grasses will not store carbon as living wood does. Those grasses will die back each year, and their carbon will be returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide through the decomposition of those grasses by naturally-occurring bacteria and fungi.

Apparently, Beef Farmers of Ontario wants to increase the province-wide cattle population by at least 100,000 — then, it is anticipated the farmers would attract other services they rely on, such as vets, machinery dealers, and eventually slaughterhouses.

In 2017, NDP MPP John Vanthof said his family owns a cattle ranch near Temiskaming, but he was alarmed the government of the day was talking as if the new cattle ranches would be stable businesses, not affected by economic cycles, because he said he knew that beef farming is as cyclical as forestry or mining, which also depend upon world prices. He noted that some of the lands under question were cattle ranches in the 20th century, but they had failed, so the land titles reverted to the government thereafter.

Beef farmers claim that it takes 2,000 the acreage to run an economically viable northern farm. At that size, a farmer is supposed to be able to grow feed for 200 cattle — enough to support a ranching family of four. That works out to 10 acres per cow or steer, and that is a lot of land.

I was surprised to find a particular quote at https://www.beefnorth.com/why-the-north under 'Environmental Benefits', used to support cattle ranching:

Specifically, BeefNorth quotes WWF: "According to the World Wildlife Federation’s website, “Keeping ranchers in business leaves grasslands intact, creates habitat for a broad diversity of birds and other grassland species, moderates run-off and secures carbon in the soil.”

That quote did NOT make sense to me in the context of eliminating existing natural forests and their associated species, so I clicked on the WWF website link and note this quote refers SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to retaining the natural prairie grasslands of the Northern Great Plains. WWF was NOT promoting the cutting of existing forests in Northern Ontario to develop artificial 'grasslands' as feeding pastures for one or two hundred thousand cattle. Those forests are already habitat for woodland caribou and other native species, and they are also shrinking, thanks to logging and mining (past, current and future).

Apparently, some Canadian politicians believe the ‘developing world’ will create new demands, along with higher prices for beef — and this is seen as a golden market opportunity. According to the previous Liberal Minister of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, Jeff Leal, “Ontario is going to be called upon to play a major role, and we’ll have to look at every part of Ontario to meet that need.”

First, Ontario needs to learn how to manage its farmlands to feed its own population, instead of adopting a ‘ghost population’ of a few extra billion people from some other part of the world. Ontario does not need to transform its landscape on the off-chance that a few billion new people will not only get progressively ‘richer’, but will also develop a big appetite for beef. It is a pure political pipedream that humans will only get ‘richer’ and continue to do so, no matter what. That’s not how things are working out in the just-in-time and gig economies of Ontario where workers have increasingly precarious employment.

At the same time, we need to understand that every natural ecosystem in Ontario is already fully engaged, meeting the food, oxygen, water, and fibre needs of both human and non-human species. There is no such thing as ‘lands surplus to requirements” anywhere on this planet. Land is a finite resource, which is fixed in size, so it will not grow in accordance with the HUGE growth of human populations.

Ontario and Canada import a majority of food items because this country places so little value on forests and farmlands that they can be sold at the lowest cost in anticipation of land-banking and re-zoning by international and some domestic corporations. Land has a purpose and value far beyond the imputed value of any particular currency because its essential ecological services, which range into the billions of dollars worth of ‘free services’ easily out-match the costly but limited human-engineered infrastructure that is supposed to replace natural ecological services, such as water cleansing, filtration and recharge. Humans cannot produce their own oxygen, so they rely on forests and other plant life to produce this life-sustaining gas as a by-product of photosynthesis.

For another take on what happens when people invade the last wild places on this planet, look at the recent corona virus outbreak in Wuhan, China. People were attending a market in Wuhan where wild meats could be obtained. Wild animals were taken from their natural habitats and slaughtered in public markets. In this way, wild viruses, that had remained isolated in their natural habitats for thousands of years, were exposed to humans. In so doing, a pandemic was created with negative consequences around the world. Was this ‘worth’ the cost of over-harvesting this wild area?