It took over ten years, but a quarter section of grazing lease near Taber was finally sold by the Alberta government. The new owner, a nearby potato grower, now has the option to put it into a different type of ag production. One has to admire the patience of the buyer for persevering through two uncooperative previous governments and a gang of obstructionist green groups. The sale issue was never about the use of the land itself, whether for grazing or crop production, it had to do with the ideological philosophy of governments selling publically owned land to a private individual or corporate entity. The idea being that all public land is now sacred and must be kept in its original state for the public good and not used for crass commercial purposes like food production. Thats a noble philosophy for folks who believe food magically sprouts up at grocery stores every day. To be fair, preserving ecologically sensitive land is worthwhile and should be encouraged; organizations like the Nature Conservancy put their money where their mouth is to do just that. In this case, neither that organization nor other well-heeled green group was willing to buy the land to preserve it in perpetuity. I suspect that may be because the land in question had dubious environmental value and wouldnt contribute much to ecological diversity or preservation of endangered species. Without those values, it would be hard for such groups to justify spending half a million dollars on what looks like dry grassland. According to the new owner, most of the land was taken over by domestic grasses and had lost much of its native grasses. Apparently, there were no endangered species to be found either. For green groups, you would think there are better causes to pursue, but I suspect such folks feel a need to fight any threat that might upset their mythical perception of nature. Maybe its just green group busybody work. Unfortunately for their credibility, virtuous perceptions are governed by political correctness and solidarity with fellow progressive movements. This means land preservation should be championed except when it may question the actions of another liberal cause or green ideology.One cant help but note the glaring hypocrisy of green groups in this very issue and this very area. Not far from the land transaction in question and southern Alberta in general, wind farms continue to develop and proliferate. These monstrous mechanical eyesores have a fatal effect on birds, bats and raptors, some of them being endangered, yet green groups appear loathe to make any disparaging comments on their deadly impact on wildlife. It would seem supporting green windmill industrialization is more important to such folks than the lethal fate of thousands of birds and bats. I should note that not all wildlife is adversely affected, most windmill farms having thriving populations of fat coyotes. In a previous life, I attempted to get access to windmill farms to ascertain bird and bat carnage but was denied permission. The government of the day was also not interested in researching wildlife losses to windmill killing machines. I guess packs of well-fed coyotes on wind farms was the unwelcome proof. Solar panel farms have their own negative impact on land ecology. Depending on how and where they are constructed and the style of the panel, they can turn the land they cover into barren deserts or weed-infested wasteland. I am not sure if any wildlife can exist under solar panels, but that doesnt seem to worry green groups as they rarely protest their development. My point is opposing the development of a quarter section of land for agricultural purposes because of environmental concerns, while at the same time conveniently ignoring the carnage from windmills and desertification caused by solar farms is nothing more than hypocrisy at its finest. One wonders are any detailed environmental, wildlife and economic assessments done before the construction of these industrial green power schemes. But I digress.One hopes that the present government will stick to its campaign promises and continue selling public land that can be used for food production everywhere in the province. It would seem that we should do that as a matter of principle for every acre lost to windmill and solar farms and to the relentless encroachment of suburban development on agricultural land, the province should sell equivalent acres for farming elsewhere. I rest my case. Will Verboven is an ag opinion writer and ag policy consultant.

Like Loading...

Related

Read more:

Government sells farmland it was the right thing to do - Brooks Bulletin