Meanwhile ford wants to level the greenbelt for profit and overpriced housing…
We have a large section of green space running alongside the waterfront trail in Oshawa.
Home to butterflies, coyotes, deer, and a quite a few different bird species. Now completely levelled and being prepped for new houses. Why in that space? I’d love to know!
Why? Because waterfront properties are valuable, and of course the only reason to build a property is for value and investment. Land can serve no other possible purpose except investment and profit.
Because waterfront properties are valuable
More valuable to wildlife and our natural ecosystem.
But yes, it’s always about money and property value.
I can’t wait for the new residents to complain about coyotes trying to eat their dogs. God knows, we get enough complaints about wildlife entering urban areas… after their natural habitats were destroyed so we can build a few more houses.
What the fuck is with Quebec always trying to cut their nose off to spite the face?
A veterinarian walking the tight rope oblivious to his own fall in the first round. /s A nose bleed is nothing when you play with forest fires. In Québec it’s for forest management because of disproportionate forest fires due to climate change. I read the article, nothing to justify batshit crazy Québec bashing WTF!
Ah, I guess you don’t need to manage forests if there isn’t any.
What about a Triple Negative?
You don’t see triple negatives often, but here’s a witty one:
I cannot say that I do not disagree with you. (Comedian Groucho Marx)
(If you follow it through logically, you’ll find it means “I disagree with you”.)
There are forests and they deserve to be preserved for generations.Cutting down the forest because of forest fires is one of the most backwards ways of preserveing forests. Especially when they are going after the trees planted to replace the ones lost due to… (wait for it)… the largest forest fires the region has seen in how long?
You’ve never heard of fire lines to help fight forest fires in conjunction with planting trees for clear-cut forest? Forests regenerate themselves after disastrous fires. Planting trees is needed after clear- cutting a forest. But the worst is yet to come with climate changes.
Yes, fire breaks are a good tool to fight an active forest fire.
Forests can use a little help after the largest fires in recorded history happened. Forests can’t regenerate properly when that happens.
It sounds like they are taking a page out of the Irvings book.
The trees haven’t even been given a chance to grow and people (the article doesn’t mention experts only industry and municipalities) want to cut them down. No where is there a mention of best practices.
When the Lumber Industry , municipal, provincial and federal governments come together in Québec after the worst forest fires in 50 years to alleviate our carbon pollution crisis. It’s more than Irving’s playbook being forced to the masses in the maritimes. There’s a consensus in the making in “la belle province “.
You’re mixing things up because the article intentionally mixed things up in order to generate hate towards Quebec.
Prime product placement in that picture.
