are self—evident. Buffers catch silt before it gets into streams, and they 
     
     filter harmful chemicals from agricultural run-off. Buffers provide a rich 
     
     habitat for a host of birds, mammals, amphibians, and other wildlife. 
     
     Buffers are the main food source for trout, in the form of insects that drop 
     
     off trees, and also of tiny organisms that feed on organic debris from the 
     
     buffer zone. Trees in buffer zones shade the water, keeping it cool for 
     
     fish. These are only a few of the benefits of riparian buffer zones.1 
     
    

    
     Let us now address two myths that are impeding the implementation of 
     
     riparian buffers on PEI. The first is the myth "The heart of the buffer zone 
     
     issue is landowner rights." According to this myth, landowners have a right 
     
     to do what they wish with land they own. This is a fallacy because there's a 
     
     principle much more fundamental, which is: No person has the right to damage 
     
     other peoples' property. Landowners' rights stop where damage to other 
     
     peoples' property begins. 
     
    

    
     Let's go back to the book of Exodus: 
     
    

    
     if it is known that the ox was previously in the habit 
     
     of goring, yet its owner has not confined it, he shall surely pay 
     
    
   
   
    
     If you have an animal capable of damaging other peoples' property, you have 
     
     an obligation to control it. And if you don't, you must pay for the damage 
     
     it causes. Cattle don't gore fish, but they can kill them just as ‘ 
     
     effectively by urinating and defecating in streams. Trout and salmon are 
     
     clean—water species, and they can't thrive in a cesspool anymore than people 
     
     can. 
     
    

    
     The fundamental obligation to avoid damage to others' property has also 
     
     been part of English common law for centuries. And it applies to any other 
     
     way that use of land damages other peoples' property. A landowner whose 
     
     cultivation practices fill the stream with silt is violating this obligation, 
     
     because he or she is destroying the fish in the stream. Silt entering 
     
     streams eventually finds its way to estuaries, where it causes further damage 
     
     by ruining shellfish beds. Trout in streams and shellfish in oyster beds 
     
     belong to the public, and the public did not ask for their property to be 
     
     destroyed. 
     
    

    
     The second myth is that buffer zones are good ecology but bad economics. 
     
     This too is a fallacy. Good ecology is good economics. 
     
    
   
   
    
     1. The economist Robert Costanza has calculated that world ecosystems 
     
     contribute $33 trillion worth of services annually. 
     
     2 Costanza's work also shows that this economic contribution is 
     
    
   
   
    
     concentrated along watercourses and coastlines. On PEI, the 
     
     recreational fishery for trout and salmon is worth $7 million annually. 
     
    

    
     3 A recent study by Trout Unlimited, an American conservation group, 
     
     singles out Prince Edward Island as having unique advantages for sea—run 
     
     brook trout because of its short rivers with nearby estuaries. 
     
    

    
     4 At present, silt pollution in our streams seriously impairs trout 
     
     reproduction, and the situation is so bad that fish have entirely 
     
     vanished from some stream reaches in east Prince County. 
     
    

    
     5 If this silt pollution were stopped, and our trout resource re—built to 
     
     its potential, it would he would the envy of eastern North America. 
     
    

    
     PEI also has an international reputation in oysters, but silt 
     
     pollution has rendered large areas of seafloor useless as oyster 
     
    
   
   
    
     4