Hunters lobby for wild turkey release on Island

by Jim Moodie

MANITOULIN-With the US Thanksgiving celebrations falling in the middle of last week's gun season for deer on Manitoulin, perhaps it was natural that hunting talk would turn from bucks and does to toms and hens.

It was wild turkeys, after all, that, along with venison, are said to have constituted the main course of the inaugural Thanksgiving feast held in Massachusetts in 1621.

Both white-tailed deer and wild gobblers once ranged widely over the northern US and southern Canada, providing an important food source for both the resident first peoples and European newcomers, but while deer continued to flourish (overabound, in some cases), the wild turkey was all but wiped out.

Gradually, the turkey population has regained a foothold in its traditional range through reintroduction efforts undertaken by natural resources staff and game bird enthusiasts, notably in southern Ontario, where the population has swelled from a mere 274 in the Orwellian year of 1984, to nearly 100,000 now, according to information from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH).

Would-be turkey hunters, represented locally by the Manitoulin Longbeards association, remain frustrated, however, that a proposed stocking effort on Manitoulin has yet to receive formal approval by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

"The ministry is aware that people are interested in having turkeys on Manitoulin, and we're looking at that right now," assured MNR spokeswoman Jolanta Kowalski last week. "But the minister hasn't made a decision yet."

Part of the reason for the ministry's hesitation, noted MNR area supervisor Bud Hebner, owes to the fact that "Manitoulin wasn't historically a habitat for turkeys."

But while the turkey enthusiasts concede that the Island is not a traditional haunt of the species, they can't see any reason why it should not be considered an acceptable adoptive home.

"That wild turkeys may never have resided here historically is a moot point," comments Scott Willis of Spring Bay, in a recent press release prepared for the Expositor. "The fact is that historic settlement has created suitable wild turkey habitat here. We have an empty ecological niche, waiting to be filled."

Mr. Willis is a member of the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF), a group whose self-stated mission is "the conservation of the wild turkey and preservation of our hunting heritage." The NWTF has been working in conjunction with the OFAH to lobby the MNR for a wild turkey introduction to occur on Manitoulin.

They point to a successful turkey release on nearby St. Joseph's Island, which shares a similar terrain to Manitoulin, to support their point. "The birds released just three years ago on St. Joseph's Island are reproducing very well, and the population is growing, as we knew it would," notes Ed Reid, a wildlife biologist with the OFAH, in the same press material provided to the Expositor.

According to the OFAH, the mix of hardwood forest, conifer cover, old fields and pasture land on Manitoulin represents "ideal turkey habitat."

The MNR doesn't necessarily disagree. "We did some habitat analysis, and it seems good for them on Manitoulin," conceded Mr. Hebner. He noted that turkeys didn't fare so well in a small introduction that was attempted south of Sudbury, near Hagar, but "it's a different climate there, with deeper snows and colder temperatures." Manitoulin, he said, "appears to have a suitable habitat, and they would probably do okay."

The ministry has been reluctant, however, to give the green light to a wild gobbler release here until they can firmly establish that such an introduction won't negatively impact existing, and, especially, threatened species.

"Manitoulin is quite different than St. Joseph's Island in terms of potential issues," noted Mr. Hebner. "There are concerns with a lot of rare and threatened species on Manitoulin that are not found on St. Joseph's."

An internal risk analysis study was conducted by the MNR, through its wildlife and species-at-risk branches, said Mr. Hebner, with the conclusion being that "turkeys might have a negative impact." While he wasn't able to pinpoint a particular species that the ministry feels is at risk from turkeys, the manager noted that "they're optimistic feeders, and will eat basically any little grub or grasshopper."

They'll also eat plants-both wild and cultivated-and it's this aspect of their appetite which has also caused some resistance among the farming community, which fears an additional pressure would be placed on crops that are already raided by a variety of unwanted nuisance critters.

Tehkummah dairy farmer Jim Anstice, a local representative of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said he doesn't know enough about the issue to solidly comment on how much of an impact wild turkeys could have on farmers' fields. But he certainly doesn't relish the idea of any additional threat. "We have a tremendous amount of pressure on crops right now-everything from raccoons to crows to geese to sandhill cranes," he noted.

The pro-turkey community feels that such concerns are largely unfounded, however. In the joint press release provided by the OFAH and the wild turkey federation, the authors contend that turkeys "should produce no negative impact on agriculture." Where damage has occurred in agricultural areas where the birds have been reintroduced, the gobblers are often being unfairly fingered as the culprits, they say, taking the rap when it is really raccoons, skunks and squirrels wreaking most of the havoc.

"It's just that the turkeys are often foraging for insects in the crops during daylight, and are the ones seen in the crops," argues Mr. Willis in the press release. "As a rule, however, they have minimal impact on grains, fruits or vegetables. Hay fields do make an ideal nesting habitat for turkeys, but there is no crop damage there."

It's a point that hasn't been entirely lost on the farming industry. A piece published last year in Better Farming, the business magazine for Ontario agriculture, agrees that the impact of turkeys on crops might be overstated.

Citing statistics gleaned from studies undertaken in Ohio and Wisconsin, the Better Farming article-titled, "Are wild turkeys getting a bad rap?"-notes that only 18 percent of wildlife-caused crop damage in the study areas could be attributed to wild turkeys, compared to 55 percent that was deer-related and 25 percent that was associated with raccoons.

Should farmers encounter a turkey menace on their land, they do reserve the right to cull the creatures, the proponents of introducing the game fowl point out. "Although (crop depredation) is very rare, farmers are, under Ontario laws, allowed to shoot wild turkeys in protection of their property," reads a statement attributed to Mr. Willis.

But it's the prospect of sport shooting that is clearly the main impetus behind the initiative to have wild turkeys released on Manitoulin. Seasons on the bird have been implemented in southern Ontario, and by all accounts the wild turkey hunt has proven quite popular.

In its press release, the OFAH and the wild turkey federation note that since 1992, when the "first wild turkey hunt in more than 100 years happened," the number of hunters has mushroomed alongside the expanding turkey population, swelling from 3,000 marksmen in that first season to about 40,000 gobbler gunners now. Together, such sportsmen contribute "almost $1 million in wild turkey licence revenue," which goes a long way towards assisting "the cash-strapped MNR, which has seen its costs increasing, and its budget flat-lined, under the current government," according to these groups.

The issue of turkeys on Manitoulin (which once had a thriving domestic turkey industry) gets a bit more complicated because certain strains of wild, or semi-wild, fowl of this genus have already been set loose on our fields, forests and slopes.

In its release, the turkey coalition notes that "there are already wild turkeys on Manitoulin," adding, "whether these are truly wild and hardy birds of the best genetic stock that can be sustained over time is an unknown."

Apparently a few domestic creatures have gone AWOL, or some over-eager turkey hunters have jumped the gun by acquiring some semi-wild gobblers and setting them loose. Either way, there is seemingly a presence of feral fowl here already.

Mr. Hebner cautioned that "you legally can't just release animals into the wild without authorization," while also stressing that "if you want a turkey program, you want the best genetic pool." You also, it bears repeating, can't shoot a turkey (as illegally occurred earlier this year near Michael's Bay) on Manitoulin at present, as there is still no season for such fowl.

In the view of the turkey enthusiasts, the presence of a questionable turkey strain roaming about should, if anything, spur the ministry to authorize a proper release. "It is all the more reason for the MNR to intervene, to get on with a managed introduction program," contends Mr. Willis.

Ferry outfitted with new engines

Chi-Cheemaun halfway through its makeover

by Michael Erskine

OWEN SOUND-The Owen Sound Transportation Company ferry MS Chi-Cheemaun has arrived safely in Sarnia with its four new engines on board, after a 26-day journey from Thunder Bay.

The ferry had been in Thunder Bay for a hull inspection, before loading up its four new Caterpillar engines and heading off to the dockyards in Sarnia for its refit.

In addition to the less powerful but more versatile Caterpillar engines, the venerable vessel will be sporting a brand new coat of paint when it returns to service this spring. After the new engines have been installed in Sarnia, work that is expected to be completed in February, the ship will set sail for its home port in Owen Sound to wait out the last of the winter. While there, a new coat of paint will be applied.

Pueblo Indian visitors share tourism experience

by Margo Little

M'CHIGEENG-Participants in an Aboriginal tourism conference were taken on a journey to "The Land of Enchantment" last Tuesday as Manitoulin played host to visitors from New Mexico. Theresa True, executive director of Ancient Storytellers, was the keynote speaker at a forum hosted by the Great Spirit Circle Trail (GSCT).

"We have so many things in common," GSCT general manager Dawn Madahbee said during the introduction of her counterpart. "The pueblo area is almost a twin area to us; they have eight pueblos (towns) and we have eight communities (First Nations) so we share a lot of similarities."

Ms. True and her sister Melissa were delighted to learn that Manitoulin Island is located near a town called Espanola. They felt right at home because they live near the community of Espanola in New Mexico.

In her address to the gathering at the Ojibwe Cultural Foundation, Ms. True explained how the eight northern pueblos of New Mexico started to take control of tourism in their territory in 1999. The communities included in the Ancient Storyteller tours are situated in the beautiful mountainous region north of Santa Fe.

Tourism had always existed in that district, but the Native people were not directly involved.

"We would often find visitors looking into windows of homes and businesses and wandering in the cemeteries of our villages," she said. "All they wanted to do was learn about our culture and there was no-one to guide them. So we decided to provide a service in that area."

The idea was to develop a cultural tourism industry but to make sure it was compatible with Aboriginal values.

"Thousands of tourists flock to Santa Fe," she said. "So we knew there was lots of business. In fact, New Mexico brings in $4 billion a year in tourism revenue but the tribes were not benefitting from it even though the Pueblo people are the number one reason people come to New Mexico."

Her company went to the tribes and urged them not "to miss out on the tourism pie." First they had to confirm that the Pueblos truly wanted tourism. Some were very strict about imposing limits on the intrusion; others were more receptive to opening their doors.

"The important thing is they are doing it their way; they are doing it based on the needs of the tribe," she stressed.

Her organization offered training in communication and presentation skills. They conducted familiarization tours; above all, they worked on dispelling stereotypes.

The groundwork is starting to pay off, she reports. More partnerships are being formed and there is a bigger presence of Aboriginal products at trade shows.

Although the aim is to offer unique and realistic tours, Ms. True emphasizes that cultural preservation remains a top priority. Prospective clients are mailed an etiquette guide before they arrive for a tour.

"We let them know the dos and don'ts ahead of time," she noted. "It's understood that they aren't allowed to participate in a healing ceremony or to photograph anything for profit. We control the amount of information that is given out. We are all about protecting our traditions through self-determined cultural tourism.That's cultural preservation."

Within these limits, visitors can still choose from a variety of educational itineraries. For instance, a tourist can enjoy a hands-on sample of the famous black pottery-making process. They get a chance to touch and shape the clay and see how it is sanded and polished. However, outside obervers are never party to the final firing of the pieces. Some techniques remain tribal secrets.

Traditional cooking is also a big draw, according to Ms. True. "People get very excited about putting their hands in the dough, shaping it and enjoying the feel of the bread before it goes in the oven. It's a great experience when they can sit down for a feast of green chili, fry bread or prune and apple pie."

Other popular outings include gourd making, weaving and jewelry making.

"When we utilize our tribal members, the visitors go away feeling much more appreciative," she said. "We hire people who live in the pueblo so visitors appreciate the one-on-one contact with the artists."

The consortium also mounts an annual arts and crafts show in the summer and just before Christmas. Over 400 artisans from throughout the US participate.

Ms. Madahbee of the GSCT thanked Ms. True for sharing strategies on heritage protection. She indicated that many of the ideas that work in New Mexico could also be adopted for Manitoulin and Sagamok.

"In the past many of our communities never got involved in tourism because we thought it exploited our people," she said. "Our people were afraid of this industry because we didn't want to see all these people wandering all over our communities. But with the cultural integrity guidelines that we have developed with the Elders, we can ensure that visitors have respect for our ceremonies."

As the GSCT gears up to host more tour buses in future, she urged members to showcase their attractions and to join the collective effort to market local tourism.

"All of our communities have different strengths.There are so many beautiful things we can share with other Aboriginal people and the world," she concluded.

EDITORIAL

Quebec nation status an unwanted distraction

A good number of Liberals could be forgiven for wanting to break out the tar and feathers after Michael Ignatieff, one of the leadership hopefuls maneouvering for position in the race to replace Paul Martin, let both the dreaded C-word (the word is 'constitution,' for those who do not live and breath Canadian politics) and the question of Quebec nationhood out of the bag in one ill-considered policy balloon that has threatened to divide the party and drive another wedge between the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

It is unlikely that even most Quebecois relish the needless confusion engendered by this move. Now, if asked abroad what their nationality is, they can with some official sanction reply, "Quebecois." It is an interesting note that, before now, the answer to that question has almost universally been "Canadian."

While someone who has been out of the country for most of the past three decades could arguably be enough out of touch to not realize just how fed up everyone here is with the interminable constitutional wrangling that took place between patriation in 1982, the Meech Lake debacle and the Charlottetown Accords, most of the other candidates should at least have had a clue.

While the ill-advised ramblings of a Harvard professor on all things C-like might be forgivable, in a candidate for leadership of a federalist party, the gamble speaks volumes as to political judgment and an unbridled lust for power. This is our country this man is mucking with.

Mr. Doucette can be forgiven for moving forward with a motion calling for the recognition of Quebec as a nation-he is, after all, a separatist. He wants to break up the country. It is his job.

Mr. Harper can be forgiven for pre-empting the Bloc motion with a counter motion of his own recognizing the Quebecois as a nation within Canada. His job is keeping the country together and his actions can be seen in the light of attempting to diffuse a more dangerous Bloc motion. This should also have been the job of any candidate for the leadership of the federal Liberal party.

Those candidates who have attempted to distance themselves from this unnecessary nonsense deserve some applause, perhaps, but by their timidity of response to Mr. Ignatieff's provocation, they make it clear they are less committed to the integrity of the state than they are to their own lust for power.

Gerard Kennedy alone stepped forward to say no, and to unequivocally reject this line of madness. In that, he has clearly identified himself as the legitimate heir to the mantel of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Now, whether one wants such a man at the helm of the Liberal Party is another question entirely.

As to the question of the Quebecois as a nation, that is clearly and indisputably the case. They have a distinct culture, language and set of national symbols which set them apart from much of (but not all of) the rest of the nation. In a federal system there is plenty of room for such distinction. Each of the provinces has powers distinct from those of the federal government, functioning as separate but equal partners in delivering the goods of peace, order and good government. The First Nations are each, in themselves, distinct nations within the boundaries of the federal system-and there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with that fact and the Canadian state.

But most people, both within and without Quebec, do not understand these fine political distinctions. Many confuse nationhood with statehood. Although these sometimes are congruent, the world abounds in examples where this is not the case. Switzerland, with its varied cantons, has been another historical success in operating as a diverse federal state.

It has been to Canada's great credit that we have been able to set aside ethnic nationality in favour of the civic state with almost no political violence. In this we set an example for the entire world. It is not a pawn to be played on the game board of mere partisan politics.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

What do you do with a poppy after its day has passed?

It hardly seems right to toss them in the garbage

To the Expositor:

Several days ago, and a few days after Remembrance Day, while I was out in a public place talking to some friends before I started my shopping, a gentleman approached me. The gentleman walked directly up to me and while pointing at the poppy attached to my coat, informed me that Remembrance Day was over and that I should no longer be wearing my poppy. I was feeling pretty good because after wearing it for several days, it had not fallen off and gotten lost like so many do. While feeling quite embarrassed and chastised, I tried to explain to the gentleman that I believe that the soldiers who have fought and died for us should be remembered every day and not just one day of the year and that is why I was still wearing my poppy. Another person who was close by and overheard the exchange of words said that she agreed with me. The gentleman then went on to say that there are other articles that can be purchased and worn that will serve as a reminder for the fallen soldiers.

On November 11, at 11 am, I was in Sudbury shopping with my daughter and a friend; at the proper time we bowed our heads and observed the two minutes of silence, while around us people continued to shop and talk.

My father fought in World War II and along with other medals was awarded the Purple Heart for injuries he sustained while serving his country. I have three brothers, two of whom served in the air force, while the third decided to serve in the navy. I am sure that many of us have loved ones who have served or died for their country and if any of these people may have witnessed me wearing my poppy after Remembrance Day and were offended by it, I sincerely apologize. It was not my intention to show any disrespect.

As soon as I got home I promptly removed my poppy from my coat and it was then that a few questions started to plague me. What should a person do with the poppy once Remembrance Day is past and it is no longer proper to wear the poppy? It doesn't seem right that something that symbolizes a day of such importance just be carelessly tossed into the garbage. Should they be returned to the Legion so they can be reused the following year? Is it okay once you remove them from your coat to display them in your car or truck? Also, what is the proper thing to do if a person finds one lying on the ground that has fallen off someone's coat? I don't believe the poppy should just be left there on the ground with the chance that it could get stepped on. Please forgive my naivety. Maybe if the gentleman I'm referring, or someone else for that matter, can please take the time to explain why the poppy should be worn for one day and one day only and also answer my other questions so that I, along with the rest of the uninformed, will have a better understanding of what to do next Remembrance Day.

Sally Assinewai

Little Current

Reform needed in First Nation governance

It's time to develop structures of accountability and institute new reforms

To the Expositor:

What rights do band members have when leaders continually disregard the rights of their membership without being made accountable for their own actions? What system of redress or appeal process do band members have when leaders get remunerated to travel to job sites only a kilometre away on reserve, when leaders already receive a substantial salary to monitor such projects?

It's good for the community to see improvements being made to its physical environment, but to use that to score political points demonstrates a real lack of security; or are they trying to take another run for the top job?

We all know that when population increases, so will the need for housing and infrastructure. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, it's just common sense.

However, what's truly disturbing is when band members fear being heard at council meetings. Although they have the right to voice legitimate concerns, most often they fear the repercussions afterwards, such as losing their place of employment.

Members of society should never be afraid to speak out against politicians, particularly if those issues are of public importance. If they cannot speak out, then their democratic and civil rights are being violated. So, what kind of message are politicians sending out to members who have fundamental and legitimate concerns?

For decades, this had been the practice of the chief and council system, which has dictatorial connotations and mimics a municipal style of government structure. First Nations who exercised true tribal systems of governance exercised them with the best interests of all their citizens, based on their oral teachings, laws, traditions and spiritual connections to the land.

When culture and the social well-being takes a back seat to infrastructure and business development, what kind of governments are we running? If our cultural and linguistic survival is of no consequence, where's the balance in that?

As persons living in Canada, we, too, are protected under the Constitution of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which allows us to exercise our rights freely. We're the only country other than the United States that relies heavily on its constitution to express the fundamental freedom of speech, rights to spiritual and cultural beliefs in a manner that doesn't violate civil and constitutional liberties of others.

Although the community of Aundeck Omni Kaning has no mechanisms to deal with such violations or abuses within its own government structure, perhaps it's time the community began to develop its own structures of accountability and institute new reforms and processes whereby checks and balances are maintained and monitored.

Don J. McGraw

Aundeck Omni Kaning

Deer 'hunt' is actually slaughter

Feeding deer apples is baiting, not hunting

To the Expositor:

Dictionary meaning for the word hunt-Activity or sport of pursuing game.

Dictionary meaning for the word slaughter-Killing of animals, butcher.

Since so many of the hunters either sit in their tree stands or feed the deer apples and carrots for days/weeks before hunting season, and then shoot them when they come out to get their treats, it certainly should not be called a deer hunt-deer slaughter is much more appropriate. Also, feeding the deer apples etc. is called baiting, not hunting.

Claire Cline

Spring Bay