From: jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)
Subject: Re: Ducks Unlimited fiasco
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: global
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:14:23 GMT


> I phoned DU Canada's headquarters and talked to a nice fellow
> about all of this (I didn't catch his name - the receptionist
> transferred the call too quickly). Actually, you are wrong. A two
> document summary of the EIA is available to the public (DU is
> mailing my copies to me right now). The actual EIA constitutes
> about 2 and half feet high of documents and obviously they can't
> mail the entire thing to me. The full set is available at the
> headquarters if I wish to peruse it though.
> 
> A second point. You comment about an "independent" EIA shows your
> profound lack of understanding of the EIA process. There is no
> such thing as an "independent" EIA. By law, the developing party
> is totally responsible for undertaking, paying for, and
> submitting an EIA to the government. The government then has the
> power to say either OK, OK but, or No.

When I said that there had not been an independent environmental review,
I knew exactly what I was talking about. Ducks Unlimited hired their
own consulting firm to perform a preliminary assessment of the project.
The preliminary project found exactly 153 serious problems with the
project, but DU decided to build anyway. The summary you are going to
receive is exactly that--an abridged, glossed over "assessment"
prepared by DU's PR department, with all the really nasty bits edited
out.

What I mean by "independent" environmental review is a full assessment
performed according to the Federal Government's Environmental 
Assessment and Review Process (EARP) Guidelines. After the EIA process
is completed, a project that is "dubious" or which elicits substantial
public concern, as the DU office complex surely has, MUST proceed
to a full PUBLIC PANEL REVIEW, whose recommendations are BINDING.

This was never done.

> The last comment the DU guy said to me basically sums up DU's
> position. He said that DU is and always has been in the business
> of creating and maintaining wildlife habitat and if there was any
> way that this development would negatively effect wildlife, it
> simply would not have been built. I agree with him and look
> forward to receiving the EIA summaries.

DU has always been in the business of shooting ducks, and of ensuring
that there are enough ducks around to shoot at. This is substantially
and tragically different from being "in the business of creating...
habitat." Many of the "wetland restoration projects" that DU has been
involved with have been absolute catastrophes in terms of species
diversity--when they tinker with a marsh, they invariably try to 
optimize water levels and circulation for duck breeding, which
very often has disastrous effects on the hundreds of other bird
species, and the thousands of plant species, which may be sharing
the marsh habitat.

Lastly, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO NEWS ADMINISTRATORS WHO USE THEIR ADMIN
IDS TO POST ANONYMOUS ATTACKS ON OTHER USERS. It is a cowardly,
offensive, and reprehensible way to "participate" in a discussion,
and an unethical abuse of position.

--------------------------------------------
jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals