Working Hard to Safeguard Paddling Assets for All Canadians

All about Whitewater

All about Whitewater
A Blog about River Preservation and the need to protect our free flowing whitewater resources

Friday, September 20, 2013

David Schindler tells it like it is in the TO Star: Government is Muzzling Scientific Thought/speech

The following smacks of fascist and totalitarianism. No problem, just 
watch hockey and have a Timmy's.
 
image from National Geographic Documentary 
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xybxxr_national-geographic-inside-undercover-in-north-korea_news
 
 
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/09/20/remove_the_muzzle_from_government_scientists.html
 
Remove the muzzle from government scientists
Politicians are twisting and hiding science that reveals flaws in their 
policies.
 
By: David Schindler Published on Fri Sep 20 2013
 
Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS
Demonstrators on Parliament Hill protest research cuts and the 
government's muzzling of Canadian scientists. (Sept. 16, 2013)
 
Most scientists are by nature introverts, happiest in the field or the 
laboratory, willing to talk about their work if asked but not inclined 
to be self-promoters. But on Monday, they demonstrated in public in 
several Canadian cities to protest the muzzling of government scientists 
and the de-emphasis of government environmental science.
 
That scientists would take the time and effort to demonstrate publicly 
should be deeply disturbing to Canadians. It indicates some dramatic and 
important changes in the purpose of government science departments.
 
In the 1960s and 1970s, government scientists were encouraged to speak 
publicly about their work. The resulting science-based policies were the 
envy of scientists and policy-makers around the world. Canada was the 
first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading 
to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms. Much of the science 
behind that decision was done by government scientists. It was welcomed 
by policy-makers eager to anchor their policies in solid science. Canada 
also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting 
chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.
 
A decade later, the transparency in government science began showing the 
first signs of weakening. Scientists were no longer encouraged to speak 
publicly on their work, but they were not prevented from doing so. They 
were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even 
environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who 
challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put 
on your file.”
 
Such tightening of public communication was one reason I left government 
science for academia. In ensuing years, control over science and 
scientists has been slowly tightened by politicians and bureaucrats 
under both Conservative and Liberal governments, who feared that science 
would challenge their ideology and their policies.
 
Even so, there were successes, such as policies to control acid rain, 
based largely on science from government departments. But there were 
also failures, as bureaucrats and politicians ignored science and 
silenced government scientists to make weak policies that collapsed the 
cod fishery and compromised the salmon runs of the Nechako River. 
Despite repeated budget cuts, government science staggered on, doing 
sometimes remarkable work, using clever liaisons with scientists in 
universities and other countries to make important work publicly known. 
During this period, I gave many lectures warning that government science 
was on a dangerous path. No one seemed to notice.
 
It remained for the Harper Government to deliver the coup de grâce to 
government science. Shortly after it took office, scientists were told 
they must have permission from bureaucrats to speak publicly. 
Bureaucrats and communications officers issued “speaking lines” that 
must be used to avoid criticism of policies. The permitted lines were 
often so inane that most scientists chose to remain silent rather be 
embarrassed by using them.
 
Often, obtaining permission took so long that the opportunity to speak 
had passed. On issues of particular international sensitivity such as 
greenhouse gases, scientists were accompanied to public meetings by 
communications “handlers” to ensure that they did not utter any words 
that would embarrass policy-makers. Scientists were advised to avoid the 
media if possible, using tactics copied from training in bear avoidance 
“walk slowly away, maintaining eye contact.” Similar tactics were used 
by the Soviet Union to suppress scientific communication during the Cold 
War, when KGB agents shadowed scientists participating in international 
meetings.
 
Other actions were taken to ensure there would be less pesky science 
done by government departments to challenge the Conservatives’ 
pro-development agenda. The government divested itself of the 
Experimental Lakes Project, government contaminants programs, climate 
projects and the Arctic PEARL project. The Fisheries Act and the 
Navigable Waters Act were changed to provide less protection, while 
expediting large industrial developments.
 
The Canadian public is beginning to see the problem, as scientifically 
misleading and downright fallacious statements are made by ministers on 
issues from greenhouse gas emissions to oilsands and protection of 
fisheries. Most people are aware that a functioning democracy depends on 
an informed electorate. Most also know that we, the taxpayers, pay the 
bills for government science and endure the consequences of the 
environmental policies, whether they are grounded in good science or 
not. We deserve to know what we are paying for.
 
We must take government science back from politicians who would twist or 
hide science that reveals flaws in their policies. We deserve to know 
the truth about the impacts of proposed developments on our environment, 
in order to avoid mistakes that will be costly to future generations.
 
Government science once provided this information, and it must be 
changed to do so again. The health of not only our environment, but of 
Canadian democracy, depends on it.
 
 
David Schindler is Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology emeritus at the 
University of Alberta. His 50-year scientific career has included 22 
years as a federal government scientist.
 
 
 
 
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/09/20/remove_the_muzzle_from_government_scientists.html
 
Remove the muzzle from government scientists
Politicians are twisting and hiding science that reveals flaws in their 
policies.
 
By: David Schindler Published on Fri Sep 20 2013
 
Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS
Demonstrators on Parliament Hill protest research cuts and the 
government's muzzling of Canadian scientists. (Sept. 16, 2013)
 
Most scientists are by nature introverts, happiest in the field or the 
laboratory, willing to talk about their work if asked but not inclined 
to be self-promoters. But on Monday, they demonstrated in public in 
several Canadian cities to protest the muzzling of government scientists 
and the de-emphasis of government environmental science.
 
That scientists would take the time and effort to demonstrate publicly 
should be deeply disturbing to Canadians. It indicates some dramatic and 
important changes in the purpose of government science departments.
 
In the 1960s and 1970s, government scientists were encouraged to speak 
publicly about their work. The resulting science-based policies were the 
envy of scientists and policy-makers around the world. Canada was the 
first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading 
to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms. Much of the science 
behind that decision was done by government scientists. It was welcomed 
by policy-makers eager to anchor their policies in solid science. Canada 
also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting 
chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.
 
A decade later, the transparency in government science began showing the 
first signs of weakening. Scientists were no longer encouraged to speak 
publicly on their work, but they were not prevented from doing so. They 
were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even 
environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who 
challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put 
on your file.”
 
Such tightening of public communication was one reason I left government 
science for academia. In ensuing years, control over science and 
scientists has been slowly tightened by politicians and bureaucrats 
under both Conservative and Liberal governments, who feared that science 
would challenge their ideology and their policies.
 
Even so, there were successes, such as policies to control acid rain, 
based largely on science from government departments. But there were 
also failures, as bureaucrats and politicians ignored science and 
silenced government scientists to make weak policies that collapsed the 
cod fishery and compromised the salmon runs of the Nechako River. 
Despite repeated budget cuts, government science staggered on, doing 
sometimes remarkable work, using clever liaisons with scientists in 
universities and other countries to make important work publicly known. 
During this period, I gave many lectures warning that government science 
was on a dangerous path. No one seemed to notice.
 
It remained for the Harper Government to deliver the coup de grâce to 
government science. Shortly after it took office, scientists were told 
they must have permission from bureaucrats to speak publicly. 
Bureaucrats and communications officers issued “speaking lines” that 
must be used to avoid criticism of policies. The permitted lines were 
often so inane that most scientists chose to remain silent rather be 
embarrassed by using them.
 
Often, obtaining permission took so long that the opportunity to speak 
had passed. On issues of particular international sensitivity such as 
greenhouse gases, scientists were accompanied to public meetings by 
communications “handlers” to ensure that they did not utter any words 
that would embarrass policy-makers. Scientists were advised to avoid the 
media if possible, using tactics copied from training in bear avoidance 
“walk slowly away, maintaining eye contact.” Similar tactics were used 
by the Soviet Union to suppress scientific communication during the Cold 
War, when KGB agents shadowed scientists participating in international 
meetings.
 
Other actions were taken to ensure there would be less pesky science 
done by government departments to challenge the Conservatives’ 
pro-development agenda. The government divested itself of the 
Experimental Lakes Project, government contaminants programs, climate 
projects and the Arctic PEARL project. The Fisheries Act and the 
Navigable Waters Act were changed to provide less protection, while 
expediting large industrial developments.
 
The Canadian public is beginning to see the problem, as scientifically 
misleading and downright fallacious statements are made by ministers on 
issues from greenhouse gas emissions to oilsands and protection of 
fisheries. Most people are aware that a functioning democracy depends on 
an informed electorate. Most also know that we, the taxpayers, pay the 
bills for government science and endure the consequences of the 
environmental policies, whether they are grounded in good science or 
not. We deserve to know what we are paying for.
 
We must take government science back from politicians who would twist or 
hide science that reveals flaws in their policies. We deserve to know 
the truth about the impacts of proposed developments on our environment, 
in order to avoid mistakes that will be costly to future generations.
 
Government science once provided this information, and it must be 
changed to do so again. The health of not only our environment, but of 
Canadian democracy, depends on it.
 
 
David Schindler is Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology emeritus at the 
University of Alberta. His 50-year scientific career has included 22 
years as a federal government scientist.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Costa Concordia continues its metaphoric rise

The Italians have pulled the wrecked ship off the reefs of Gulio, in a classic metaphor for the world's economy.  The ship has been recovered, like our economy has be recovered.  Unfortunately, they are both in similar condition.


And soon, both will be off to the salvage yards.

Canadian Rivers

Canadian Rivers
I speak for river users too!

The Queen is not amused!

The Queen is not amused!
http://www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.ca/

The Damned Dam - 2005 -

The Damned Dam - 2005 -
22nd Annual Kipaw Rally has modest turnout. - 23rd does better

The Ashlu river: it could happen to you

The Ashlu river: it could happen to you

Whitewater Ontario

Whitewater Ontario
Working Hard to Protect Canada's Paddling Resources

Whitewater Ontario - Mission Statement

It is Whitewater Ontario’s mission to support the whitewater paddling community through the promotion, development and growth of the sport in its various disciplines. We accomplish this through the development of events, resources, clubs, and programs for personal and athletic development, regardless of skill level or focus, to ensure a high standard of safety and competency; We advocate safe and environmentally responsible access and use of Ontario’s rivers. Whitewater Ontario is the sport governing body in the province, and represents provincial interests within the national body Whitewater Canada and the Canadian Canoe Association http://www.whitewaterontario.ca/page/mission.asp

Kipawa, Tabaret, and Opemican

Kipawa, Tabaret, and Opemican
If Hydro Quebec is not actively pursuing Tabaret what is that bite out of Opemican for?

Kipawa Dam: After

Kipawa Dam: After
Laniel Dam at 2006 Rally

Where is the Kipawa

Where is the Kipawa
Kipawa flows into lake Temiskamingue, running from Kipawa Lake, under hwy 101 in Quebec

Kipawa Dam

Kipawa Dam
laniel dam at 2004 River Rally

Tabaret is a Bad Idea

About the Kipawa



The best thing paddlers can do to help the cause of the Kipawa:

1. attend the rally and bring others including non paddlers to attend and buy beer and have fun

2. write your MP /MNA and raise the issue and post your objections -1 letter = 200 who didn't write

3. Write Thierry Vandal the CEO of Hydro Quebec strongly opposing the 132 MW standard decrying the use of "diversion" as the most environmentally inappropriate method of power production

4. Write Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec protesting that either the algonquin or the tabaret project will eliminate all other values on the Kipawa River by turning it into a dry gulch.

5. See if you can get other allied groups interested by showing your own interest, ie the Sierra Defense Fund, Earthwild, MEC, and so on.

6. Demand further consultation

7. Currently we are at the point where we need to sway public opinion and raise awareness.

However, if all else fails, don't get mad, simply disrupt, foment, and protest . The Monkey Wrench Gang.

Have you read Edward Abbey?

Important Addresses
CEO,Hydro Québec, 75 boul René Levesque, Montreal, P.Q., H2Z 1A4Caille.andre@hydro.qc.ca



Tabaret is a Bad Idea (Part Two)

Les Amis de la Riviere Kipawa is poised to use an application to the Federal Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to ensure the Minster does what he is supposed to do, protect the public's right to navigate the water control structure at Laniel, Quebec using the Navigable Waters Protection Act. (see http://www.kipawariver.ca/)

In the now gutted Navigable Waters Protection Act lay the means by which the Minister of Transport could keep the public right of passage down our great Canadian Heritage, our rivers and streams which are threatened especially by resource corporations and power brokers such as Hydro Quebec.

These powerful entities continue to petition that 'this' river or 'that' stream is not navigable and therefore not protectable.
I don't say that dams and bridges should not be built, only that if they are, historical navigation rights should be considered and preserved by making reasonable accommodations for recreational boaters.

It is the Minister of Transport, in exercising the right to allow or disallow work on or over a navigable waterway is what keeps boats and recreational boaters plying our waterways.

To many recent cases launched in the Federal Court concerning the Navigable Waters Protection Act, most recently the case of the Humber Environment Group of Cornerbrook Newfoundland versus the Cornerbrook Pulp and Paper Company indicates that the important oversight is not being faithfully performed. Have we really come to the point now where we must say "such and such a stream is one foot deep, possessing so many cubic feet per second flow and so on?" The answer to this is... YES!

The honourable Mr. Justice John A. O'Keefe, ruled that it had not been shown that the river was navigable. How convenient was that to the Minister? But either the Minister of Transport acts to protect our rivers and streams as a public right or he does not and that means rivers and streams currently enjoyed by kayakers and canoists.

Enough of the cheating, and double-talk. Canadians! our rivers and streams are our own, lets urge the Minister of Transport and the our government to protect them.

Peter Karwacki

Tabaret is a Bad Idea (Part Three)

10 Reasons WhyTabaret is a Bad Idea1) Tabaret is too big. The station is designed to useevery drop of water available in the Kipawawatershed, but will run at only 44 percent capacity.We believe the Tabaret station is designed to usewater diverted from the Dumoine River into theKipawa watershed in the future. 2) The Tabaret project will eliminate the aquaticecosystem of the Kipawa River.The Tabaret project plan involves the diversion of a16-km section of the Kipawa River from its naturalstreambed into a new man-made outflow from LakeKipawa. 3) Tabaret will leave a large industrial footprint on thelandscape that will impact existing tourismoperations and eliminate future tourism potential. 4) The Tabaret project is an aggressive single-purposedevelopment, designed to maximize powergeneration at the expense of all other uses. 5) River-diversion, such as the Tabaret project, takinglarge amounts of water out of a river’s naturalstreambed and moving it to another place, is verydestructive to the natural environment. 6) The Kipawa River has been designated a protectedgreenspace in the region with severe limitations ondevelopment. This designation recognizes theecological, historical and natural heritage value ofthe river and the importance of protecting it.Tabaret will eliminate that value. 7) If necessary, there are other, smarter and morereasonable options for producing hydro power onthe Kipawa watershed. It is possible to build a lowimpactgenerating station on the Kipawa river, andmanage it as a “run-of-the-river” station, makinguse of natural flows while maintaining other values,with minimal impact on the environment. 8) The Kipawa watershed is a rich natural resource forthe Temiscaming Region, resonably close to largeurban areas, with huge untapped potential fortourism and recreation development in the future.Tabaret will severely reduce this potential. 9) Tabaret provides zero long-term economic benefitfor the region through employment. The plan is forthe station to be completely automated andremotely operated. 10) The Kipawa River is 12,000 years old. The riverwas here thousands of years before any peoplecame to the region. The Tabaret project will change all that.

Problems on a local River?

  • There is more to do as well but you have to do your research and above all, don't give up.
  • IN the meantime prepared a document itemizing the history of navigation of this spot and its recreational value. Use the Kipawa river history of navigation as a guide: see www.kipawariver.ca
  • Under the Ministry of Environment guidelines you have a set period of time to petition the change under the environmental bill of rights, you may have limited time to take this action. But it involves going to court for a judicial review of the decision.
  • 4. contact the ministry of natural resources officials and do the same thing.
  • 3. contact the ministry of the environment and determine if they approved the project
  • 2. determine if the dam was a legal dam, approved under the navigable waters protection act.
  • 1. research the decision and timing of it to determine if an environmental assessment was done.

Minden Ontario

Minden Ontario
Gull River Water control at Horseshoe lake

A History of Navigation on the Kipawa River

Prior to the environmental assessment there was no signage at the Laniel Dam

T-Shirts Area: These are available now!

T-Shirts Area: These are available now!
Send $25 and a stamped self addressed envelop for the Tshirt, and for the bumper sticker, a stamped and self addressed envelope with $5.00 for the bumper sticker to Les Amis de la rivière Kipawa, 80 Ontario St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1K 1K9 or click the link To purchase a Les Amis "T" contact Doug with the following information: Number of shirts:Sizes: Ship to Address: Method of Payment: cash, cheque and paypal, Shipto address:

Bumper Stickers Now Available

Bumper Stickers Now Available
Get your bumper sticker and show your support for the Kipawa Legal Fund ! - send $5.00 in a Stamped, self addressed envelope to: Peter Karwacki Box 39111, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 7X0