The Editor,
Re. "Some perspective on Colony Farm plan" (Green Scene, The Tri-City News, Oct. 7).
I appreciate columnist Elaine Golds' detailed account of the Colony Farm Land Use Plan of 1995. She notes that plan was based on three values: agriculture, recreation, and wildlife.
Ironically, the 1995 steering committee, which included Burke Mountain Naturalists (BMN), planned to farm the agricultural fields. The revenues would fund recreation and wildlife activities at Colony Farm - a good idea.
Today, BMN is opposed to commercial agriculture at Colony Farm because it is a park.
In contrast, in Ontario, small-scale urban farmers are being welcomed with leases on agricultural lands in national and provincial parks. Instead of saying "no" to commercial agriculture, we should be discussing criteria for how farming should be done and how revenues will be returned to the park.
Ms. Golds stated that BMN is not opposed to agriculture at Colony Farm, as evidenced by its support for expansion of community/allotment gardens. Since both agriculture and gardening involve growing things, the naturalists can be forgiven for thinking that community gardens are a form of agriculture. They aren't.
Agriculture refers to field cultivation and management. The land designated for agriculture in the 2011 draft plan is 187 acres. In contrast, a plot in the existing community garden measures 0.006 acre. Extreme subdivision of 187 acres among a great many gardeners makes it impossible to steward the land in an integrated, holistic way. Community/allotment gardens are a valued recreational activity but they are not agriculture.
The Burke Mountain Naturalists are dedicated wildlife advocates. I value their perspective on wildlife. But BMN's ideas for Colony Farm embrace only two of the three values of the 1995 Land Use Plan. They have yet to say "yes" to environmentally sensitive agriculture, which could provide so many benefits to the park, the community and even to wildlife. They express no desire to see a return to the proud tradition of farming on the agricultural fields of Colony Farm.
The question for readers remains: Should the prime agricultural land at Colony Farm (under a third of the park's total area) be used for agriculture, in keeping with both the word and the intent of the 1995 Land Use Plan?
Ginny Wilson, Port Moody
