And then, of course...

As we're still sitting on this side of the mystery -you know, 'in the dark'- there's a question that continues to niggle at me:

Why wouldn't a National Historic Site make an issue at some point of the risk involved in having privately-owned land adjoining theirs?

Further, was the private ownership a surprise to the administration at Battlefield?

How many waves of administration has the Battlefield had over the past half-century?

Why hadn't someone done a straightforward check on the physical boundaries of the facilities? You know, like the standard process of doing a title search on land before purchasing property? How long has this been an unrecognized situation?

As stated elsewhere, my initial enquiry into all this was directed to the Stoney Creek News. They enquired to Battlefield, who enquired to their higher-ups at Museums and Heritage Presentation, Culture Division, Community Services Department, who passed the information down the line that 'the affected area was not, in fact, part of Battlefield Park'.

Okaaaay...

So you have a private landowner cutting down trees on property that abuts a National Historic Site...who two weeks later clear-cuts the site, reducing it to the horticultural equivalent of a war-zone...and at that point, as of May 12th, people are still just shrugging? Effectively saying to those doing the enquiring that they regret they cannot be more helpful...?

My belief is that in most situations, contributing elements often play as much a part as the primary one. So in this case: yes, the landowner has done something that everyone commenting to me has described as 'disgusting', and they need to answer for it, but perhaps just as importantly, 'Why was this piece of land left in an 'at risk' state for so long a period of time?'

Think about it: doesn't stewardship of so fundamental a site as Battlefield Park include oversight and forethought sufficient to prevent those potential problems as are identifiable? (I put it this way for a very good reason: assuming that no stamp of approval would ever be given to any development of this land -aside from a total inversion of value system and guidelines of propriety...or a City Council gone insane- then what's the point of holding this land privately at all? Why wasn't this land pursued by Battlefield? Better yet, who wouldn't have donated it by now?) Don't you think that this should have been recognized as something needing to be rectified years ago? To prevent from happening what's happening now?

I'll end this post with some words of a friend of mine:

"I am no eco expert, but in an age where we are so conscious (finally) of our connection with the earth....are implementing things like green roof projects, wind power, geo thermal heating and cooling...stewardship of our green space, however large or small should be our first consideration. As you are aware, I am not opposed to cultivation or discretionary cutting of plant material, but it must be done in context and not isolation. You need to look at where your space is and how what you cut or plant will effect your space and your neighbours.

It is beyond me that a landlocked piece of property in such an environmentally sensitive location could have this kind of clearing done without the necessary permits and without consultation with the two primary caretakers of the area...the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Bruce Trail."