Thursday, June 16, 2011

Those Crazy Canadians

Just when I held out some hope for our northern neighbors comes this:
Bureaucrats have added insult to injury for a corn farmer south of Montreal whose fields have been damaged by near-record flooding.

Martin Reid says he's been forced to buy a fishing licence to remove carp that are swimming in a metre of water on his flooded-out fields.

He says he bought the permit to avoid the problems he faced the last time he was forced to remove fish from his flooded farmland. In 1993, Reid was fined $1,000 for illegal fishing.

"My father and I . . . were charged by Fisheries and Oceans Canada," Reid recalled. "We were jointly responsible for having caused the death of fish for reasons other than sport fishing."

Reid says the fine will jump to $100,000 if he's cited a second time.
So how do authorities justify the regulation? Obviously, to protect the farmers:
A spokesman for the provincial natural resources department defended Ottawa's decision.

"The idea is to help farmers," said Jean-Philippe Detolle. "The licence was issued to reassure them they won't be fined."
(via Small Dead Animals)


suek said...

Ok...I'll bite.

If he's removing them to eat or sell - which seems reasonable - then I guess I could live with the license requirement. However...

Other than that, why is he removing them? One meter of water...that's 3 ft! That's a heck of a flood! either those fish will swim off by themselves as the water recedes, or they'll stay and die - free fertilizer!

Add to that...$1000 for a fishing license?? Holey moley!

A_Nonny_Mouse said...

Y'know, it just boggles the mind...

Sometimes I go along with the anarchists: NO government might actually be better than what we've got.

When we re-invent the Constitution (I'm assuming all the same government-limiting verbiage, plus term limits, plus "Govt shall not subsidize ANYTHING", plus "Failure of any member of Congress to read a bill before they vote on it shall be a capital offense", etc) let's also be sure that Regulatory Agencies are prohibited. I want the lazy slackers of Congress to have to vote on EVERY SINGLE THING that constrains the freedom of Americans, and I want to make sure that if we need to reverse any stupid regulations we'll always have the "sharp stick" of voter dissatisfaction to keep the legislators accountable.

A. Modizt Prupozil said...

>>> Sometimes I go along with the anarchists: NO government might actually be better than what we've got.

The solution to government control... license sniping at government bureaucrats. One bureaucrat per sniper per year.

I mean, hey, the problem isn't the government, it's the fact that there's no population controls... You get two of them, and sooner or later you've got hundreds!

As an added benefit, it would help improve the breed. Really, really stupid ones would get taken out fast, while the smarter ones would survive to better do their jobs.

Works for me.

OBloodyHell said...

ANM --
a) Balanced Budget, with stipulations for borrowing similar to those levels which are placed on individuals and businesses regarding the percentage of income, etc. And the numbers, once established, can only be changed by federal referendum, and only temporarily before reverting to some minimal standard.

b) NO "special" government accounting techniques. Governments at all levels MUST adhere to GAAP.

c) Allow federal, state, and local level referendums.

d) RAH had an interesting idea -- two houses, one passes laws by 2/3rds majority. The other repeals laws by only a 1/3rd vote. The idea being that if a law is unsupported by 1/3rd of the populace then it probably should not be Law. And if you can't get 2/3rds of the people behind it, the same applies.

Warren said...

Well, Canada is doing something right:


... For the record, Ayers was slated to deliver the keynote address to the Worldview Conference on Media and Higher Education. The group hosting the event, Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA), is not very pleased with that officials turned their Keynote speaker away, but Canadian Law clearly forbids entry into the country to persons involved:

“in criminal activity, in human rights violations or in organized crime.”

The conference organizer and President of the OCUFA, Mark Langer, delivered the best quote related to the story as he compared an admitted terrorist bomber to America’s most successful Domestic Designer:

“I am disturbed by the apparent inconsistency in the enforcement of Canada’s border, in the past, we have admitted Martha Stewart, a convicted felon.”

As of this writing, Mr. Ayers has reportedly hired attorneys on both sides of the border between Canada and America, in hopes of breaking through the legal impasse in time to deliver tomorrow’s keynote address.

suek said...

Another good article:

Michael Yourshaw said...

from the nation of Regina v Ojibway