Perth South farmers speak out against proposed changes to Perth County forest-conservation bylaw

By Galen Simmons, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

A pair of Perth South farmers are voicing concerns around proposed changes to Perth County’ forest-conservation bylaw they say could limit how farmers across the county can use their land while, at the same time, dissuading those same farmers from planting trees in the first place.

As part of the bylaw review process, county staff are bringing the proposed changes to the councils of Perth County’s four lower-tier municipalities before hosting a public meeting on the changes at the Perth East Recreation Complex in Milverton on Dec. 10. On Nov. 4, the bylaw changes were presented to Perth South council, where both councillors and local farmers Gerald Kolkman and Henry Koskamp had the opportunity to provide their feedback.

“Perth County’s forest-conservation program exists to regulate tree destruction and injury, and to improve our forests, soil, fish, wildlife and water resources,” said county clerk Tyler Sager. “However, the reality of this is actually kind of concerning. Perth County has only nine per cent forest coverage. So, to put that in perspective with our neighbouring municipality of Huron County, they have 16 per-cent coverage.”

According to county resiliency and stewardship coordinator Hannah Cann, the province recommends a minimum of 30 per-cent soil coverage to support just half of the species that live within a given area. That forest cover, she explained, has benefits for both the natural ecosystem and human agriculture, including protecting topsoil from wind erosion and crops from wind damage, providing shade and thereby reducing mortality of livestock, offering flood mitigation and air purification, and providing habitat for local wildlife including pollinator species.

For Kolkman and Koskamp, who delegated before council after the bylaw changes were presented by county staff, the crux of their concerns revolve around an updated definition of “woodlot” and the inclusion of “windbreak” as a new defined term in the bylaw, and where protections for woodlots intersect with windbreaks.

In the proposed changes, a woodlot in Perth County is defined as land at least 0.2 hectares in area and no greater than one hectare in area, with at least 200 trees of any size per 0.2 hectares; 150 trees measuring over five centimetres in diameter per 0.2 hectares; 100 trees measuring over 12 centimetres in diameter per 0.2 hectares; or 50 trees measuring over 20 centimetres in diameter per 0.2 hectares, but does not include a cultivated fruit or nut orchard, a windbreak or a plantation established for the purpose of producing Christmas trees or nursery stock.

A windbreak, meanwhile, is defined as a linear treed area consisting of one to three rows of planted trees less than 0.2 hectares in size. The problem for some farmers, including Kolkman and Koskamp, is if a windbreak is larger than 0.2 hectares in size – which they say many are – does that make it make it a protected woodlot under the bylaw’s proposed changes?

“Farmers are good stewards of the land, and we plant windbreaks for our own reasons, and also aesthetic and landscaping purposes,” Kolkman said. “And plans change. We had a house fire a number of years ago; we had to rebuild our house. There was a windbreak on the one side and the house had to move over, so we took out our windbreak – and that was only planted for aesthetic purposes. I planted that windbreak and I took it out, and I moved the windbreak over and I planted it again. I took it down because plans change on a farm.

“What we’re suggesting … is to encourage them. They should not be limited by area or size. Just encourage farms to plant windbreaks. We’d have a lot more uptake and a lot more trees planted because we’re incentivizing them. Also, we promote the one-hectare size of land (for woodlots). That’s what the Forestry Act requires; they’re not pushing the municipality to go down to (0.2 hectares). There’s nobody holding a gun to the municipality’s head that they have to do that. It’s totally within the power of the municipality to choose the size and how restrictive they actually want it to be.”

According to the two Perth South farmers, many other farmers in the township and elsewhere in the county are concerned any removal of trees from a windbreak could result in hefty fines under an amended bylaw.

Kolkman and Koskamp said they went through the proposed changes to the forest-conservation bylaw and made changes of their own they said would be more palatable to rural landowners in the township. Among those proposed changes is a proposal for registry through which landowners have the choice to register larger windbreaks to avoid classification as woodlots.

“We want to plant trees. I, personally, have a very negative attitude toward planting trees because this is so restrictive,” Koskamp said. “ … If I plant a windbreak, do I have to get a lawyer and a planner to lay it out and keep it under (0.2 hectares) so I don’t have (a woodlot)? Because as soon as it becomes a woodlot, that land, without my consent, will be switched from arable land to woodland.

“ … In our document, we put something in called a tree registry. The tree registry gives you an opportunity to protect that windbreak when the next farmer might want to rip it out. You can also register that you have the option to move it, change it, so it will not become part of the woodland. It’s your property, trees belong in the mix, but do we need to regulate everything over (0.2 hectares)? Couldn’t we just plant?”

Sager told those present at the council meeting the feedback from the Perth South delegation and councillors would be considered for the final iteration of bylaw. He also noted that should landowners have questions about whether the removal of trees might be a contravention of the amended bylaw, they can call the county’s tree inspector or county staff and ask before proceeding.

In many cases, the exemption/appeal process included among the proposed changes to the bylaw will allow farmers to state their case if the removal of trees is integral to work or life on a farm.