Censored Letter in UNB Alumni News
Read the Letter in the UNB Alumni News Censored by the UNB Administration
(UNB Alumni News, page 7, Winter 2008 - http://alumni.unb.ca/publications/alumninews/)
We, The Friends of the UNB Woodlot, feel compelled to respond to the article published in the UNB Alumni news (Fall 2007). Several points in the article are partially or completely inaccurate. We wish to clarify several of these points.
First, the article attributes two quotations (p.16) to the original wording of the land grant of 1800 that are no where to be found. UNB claims that this land grant gives it the freedom to use the land any way it wants to. The Government of Great Britain did not sell this land to The College of New Brunswick, but rather it was granted under Quit-rent, to be used for public purposes forever: "...to the sole proper use and behold of the said Governor and Trustees of The College of New Brunswick and their successors and assign forever...". This obligation was further strengthened by the 1827 Royal Charter for King's College and the 1859 provincial Act Establishing The University of New Brunswick that requires trustees "...shall be able and capable to have, take, and receive, purchase, acquire, hold, possess, enjoy, and maintain..."; (DELETED - the sale of Woodlot land is not an option for UNB!) UNB's actions seem to be in clear violation of the original land grant. (DELETED - The sale of the Woodlot land to the City of Fredericton for the four-lane highway represents one concrete example of such violation.)
(DELETED - Second, the article claims that extensive consultation, both professional and public, was undertaken (p.17). UNB prides itself on its Forestry Faculty. However, this faculty was not consulted nor given a chance to contribute to a management plan. In fact, neither a wildlife nor forestry management plan was used in the preparation of the development strategy of the Woodlot. The Maritime School of Forest Technology was not consulted either.)
(DELETED - With respect to public consultation, the article claims that "Many stakeholder groups and individuals from within and beyond UNB were consulted to obtain information and input on valued features of the woodlot, including recreational, research, teaching, and environmental features." (p.17). It appears however, that only minimal public consultation was conducted. On the basis of numerous discussions, it is clear that some of the interest groups were given virtually no opportunity to submit their input or were misquoted.)
(DELETED - With regard to the absence of wildlife and forestry management plans, finally,) the article states that "…the plan has designated 50 per cent of the approximately 3,815 acres of the UNB Woodlot as green space" (p.15). Unfortunately, this patchwork of isolated wetlands and their narrow buffers cannot support a full range of meaningful wildlife habitat nor long-standing teaching and recreation value. By law these wetlands cannot be developed, so preserving them does not constitute any real stewardship. (DELETED - Already, the Woodlot's wildlife is being threatened. For example, UNB's own symbol, the beaver, is being actively eliminated from the Woodlot via the use of underwater body-gripping kill traps. In November and December of 2006, twenty-four beavers were killed in this fashion.)
In light of these disturbing facts, we, The Friends of the UNB Woodlot, call upon the University of New Brunswick to place a moratorium on the development of the UNB Woodlot. Development should stop until extensive and meaningful public participation takes place. To find more about this issue and/or to sign a petition, please visit www.unbwoodlot.org or www.smartgrowthunb.ca.
On behalf of Friends of the UNB Woodlot,
Andrew Bedford
Mark D'Arcy (UNB BSc 1986)
Ross Ferguson
Dr. Caroline Lubbe-D'Arcy
Dr. Charlene Mayes
Janet Phillipps
Dr. Monika Stelzl (UNB BA 1996)
“Correction
An article in the fall 2007 UNB Alumni News incorrectly attributed a quote regarding the use of UNB’s woodlot to the original 1800 charter granting the land. While the quote should have been attributed to another source, it is in keeping with the spirit of original documents.”
