The Ministry of the…

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
(MECP) Ontario

re the creation of a “Conservation Reserve”
along the South Shore of Prince Edward County

This morning, after reviewing your mailing for the umpteenth time, I decided I would send some comments on the initiative to turn Point Petre Wildlife Area and Ostrander Point into a “Conservation Reserve”. But first, I thought, I’ll take a walk down to the Point and think about what to say.

When I arrived at the corner where County Road #24, Army Reserve Road, and Point Petre Road converge, I came upon a half dozen or so trucks. Each one had an empty trailer attached; each of those trailers had held either one or two ATVs.

The machines had just been launched and, in an excess of what might be termed exuberance, their owners were piloting them into and out of the bush, insensitively chewing up the lightly snow-covered ground, one part of which is a small area of wild garlic. Snow, mud, grass, and other unidentifiable bits of vegetation were being flung through the air by the spinning ATV tires. More “donuts” were turned in the small garlic patch and on the road than I could count.

After a few minutes of this nonsense, the ATVs sped off into the bush and out of sight.

This was not a “one-off”. It happens all the time and many of the ATVers who frequent Point Petre love it when it’s wet or raining – as it was this morning, when the ground is littered with puddles and earth is soft. Why? Because, to them, it’s “fun” to tear up the earth and make a mess in those conditions.

Now that I am writing, the spectacle I witnessed this morning is juxtaposed in my mind with your laudable plan for the South Shore of PEC. The images do not make for good bedfellows.

Before I can comment on the details of the Ministry’s initiative, I need to address nomenclature: specifically, the words “Conservation Reserve”. I will be very brief …

The word “conservation” comes to us from the Latin conservatio. It means “a keeping” or “a preserving” and is constructed from con- ("with or together,") and -ser- ("to protect," from the Latin servare "to guard, keep, watch").

The word “reserve” comes to us originally from the Latin reservare. It means “to keep back” and is constructed from re- ("back, back from" and conveys the notion of "undoing") and -ser- ("to protect," as I noted above).

Both words have experienced slight alterations down through the ages – through Old- and Middle-English, but they have remained essentially true to what they were intended to describe.

In a nutshell, the term “Conservation” suggests an intent, by the collective “us”, to “preserve” or “keep” something from harm. “Reserve” suggests an intent to “keep back” something, in the sense of “undoing” what has been happening to or with it and, by that, “protecting” it.

With the above in mind, calling something a “Conservation Reserve” is a redundancy. Both words mean, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. You might want to rethink what you are calling this initiative.

That said, there are problems with how you intend to proceed in order to achieve what your words suggest you want to achieve.

Particularly problematic are parts of paragraph #4 and paragraph #5 …

“… if designated a conservation reserve, the land would provide opportunities for the community to enjoy the area’s natural beauty, including hiking, hunting and birdwatching, while strengthening the long-term protection of biodiversity.

“Although most current permitted recreational uses would be able to continue, changes could be made in the future if uses threaten the values of the conservation reserve … Industrial and commercial uses would be restricted in these areas.”

To be blunt …

1. “Hunting” does NOT “preserve”. It decimates. It needs to be “kept back” or “undone”. By that I mean it must end the moment the area becomes a “Conservation Reserve”. What exactly are you “preserving” (of bird and animal life) if it is allowed to continue? Moreover, hunting endangers those who “hike” and “birdwatch”.

2. Many of the “current permitted recreational uses” beyond hunting (here I refer you back to the spectacle I witnessed this morning) do NOT “preserve”. They decimate. ATVs (the worst offenders) – I include in the use of this term dune buggies, snowmobiles, and amphibious 6- and 8-wheelers – exist only to chew up the landscape and create safety issues for hikers and birdwatchers. I should also mention here the really detrimental footprint left by illegal campers. These activities must end the moment the area becomes a “Conservation Reserve”. The machines, employed as they currently are, “preserve” nothing. They need to be “kept back”. The campers, given their rather loose understanding of what constitutes garbage (and what to do with it) and their use of the forest as an outhouse “preserve” nothing. They too need to be “kept back”.

3. “Restricted” industrial and commercial uses is not good enough in either practice or intent. Neither “preserve”. Both decimate and pollute. Any and all industrial and commercial uses must end the moment the area becomes a “Conservation Reserve”. That would go a long way toward “preserving” the land, the wildlife, and the air.

To recap, insults are visited daily on the land at Point Petre: walking through rutted forests, one is assaulted by broken-down vegetation, masticated soil, air befouled by ATVs and their kin; birds and animals are indiscriminately killed by hunters, and now and then one must dodge shotgun pellets during the various hunting seasons; garbage is left behind by campers and hunters; garbage is dumped by scofflaws (usually under the cover of night), often dangerous stuff that should have been taken to a Transfer Station but wasn’t … etc., etc., etc.

In particular, the area that exists west of County Road #24 and Point Petre Road down to the Point needs to be protected from these behaviours although, to be truthful, all of the area under consideration does.

So, if you intend to “conserve” and/or “reserve” the designated lands, you need to make that happen in a much more forceful way than your language in the mailing suggests you have in mind. Moreover, these changes must be enforced, a concept that has been pretty much abandoned by the MNR since its agents left Glenora.

Otherwise, what’s the point?

As to naming this area …

1. I suggest you rethink your use of the term “Conservation Reserve” (see above).

2. If this change in governance does come to pass, leave the name Point Petre out of whatever you decide to call it. That way, the area might be harder to find for those intent on degradation.

March 5, 2022