Comments on the Digby Courier online:
Daniel Mills - June 12, 2011 at 12:01:50 Based on past dealings with Mr.Belliveau, and his reassurances that giant wind-catchers would "have no effect on the environment", i.e. to say, the people of Waterford,Rossway,and Gullivers Cove on Digby Neck, it is laughable that he would expect us to accept that there will be "no adverse effects on the environment" in the Baie Ste Marie or the Bay of Fundy because, as he say's: "I believe in the science." (I used to believe in Fairy Tales when I was little; didn't most of us? But in time we learned that they are not true...Mr. Belliveau and Aesop seem to be coming from a similiar place and appear to hold the monopoly on myth,) It is even more interesting that Mr.Haise would say: " The last thing we want is for people in the communities to be pitted against one another" and a claim that they have been Nova Scotia for a long time. Mr. Haise cannot have had his eyes and ears wide open.....or else his head buried in the sand. That's exactly how politics is done in Nova Scotia: small town/district Municipal Councils courting all and any business that comes around behind closed doors, and when the consumation has transpired, the commercial embryo is imposed and inflicted on an unsuspecting public, to be followed by lip-service consultations of a sort which effectively mean nothing....while sides are taken,lies are spoken, and false promises for countless jobs which never happen. Those in the line of fire naturally will react negatively because there are so many unanswered questions, while those who will not see or feel the effects jump on board.......and another war begins. Divide and Conquer is the name; profits for corporations from afar and beyond haul in the dollars.
Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment
This form is NOT used for emailing the article to a friend. Please use the "Send to a friend" link at the top of the page for that purpose.
The Digby Courier is not responsible for posted comments. Please be polite and confine your comments to the subject of the posted story. If you have an account, please sign on to it..
Your name* Email* (we keep all emails private) Comment* Agreement
We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.
Conditions I agree with these conditions.
moya murphy - June 12, 2011 at 11:57:46 The Minister of the Environment is short sighted (once again) re the salmon farms. The effluent from this is disgusting, lice is rampant. Despite what they say about jobs they will be temporary with just one or two people throwing pellets into the cages. Cooke's aquaculture were refused permission to put in such huge farms in New Brunswick which is why they turned to Nova Scotia. I don't understand how they can lease part of the ocean, surely the ocean belongs to everyone. A sad day for the residents of the Islands and the Digby Neck. Moya
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Aquaculture and Jonathan Riley
Published on June 11, 2011
Published on June 11, 2011
Jonathan Riley As Simple as That
The people and communities of Digby Neck and Islands have challenges, including a lack of health care and policing, a declining population, closing schools and a ferry service that sometimes leaves you stranded.
Now along comes a company from New Brunswick, a company that calls itself “the largest fully integrated and independent salmon farming company in North America.”
And they say, “we have the answers, we have jobs.”
And as it turns out, the people of the Islands, don’t have any choice but to accept those farms and any extra challenges that come with them.
More than 80 per cent of the population out there signed a petition against the new salmon leases for Cooke Aquaculture. Eighty per cent is a clear majority, a resounding definite ‘No thanks.’
Despite that, despite articulate and persistent opposition from the people of the Islands, Sterling Belliveau, Nova Scotia’s minister of fisheries approved the leases.
Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the Islands is the paternalistic attitude of the provincial government. Any hope that the NDP would be different has vanished only two years into their government.
Now I don’t pretend to know more about fishing or the ocean or aquaculture or even big business than Belliveau does. He’s got me there.
The big difference between Sterling Belliveau and me is I went down the Islands to talk to the people there about their concerns. Belliveau said it was “more convenient” to meet in Digby.
It wasn’t easy for me to get down there either. I haven’t got a car yet and had to borrow one from a friend, cause I thought the story was that important. I’m pretty sure the minister has a car.
Like Belliveau, when he met them in Digby, I couldn’t give the fishermen and concerned citizens down there any answers. But I went back to Digby and asked those questions to Cooke Aquaculture and to the minister.
They are getting me the answers, they say. Cooke Aquaculture has offered me a trip out to see the site in Grand Passage for myself. I can’t wait.
But let’s get back to the challenges facing Digby Neck and Islands. The people there aren’t sitting around with their hands open, begging for help. They too are working towards solutions, looking for answers, trying to figure out their future.
They see in their community a lot of potential, a lot of positives, a lot of strengths. One of those strengths is a clean productive marine environment that has provided for their community for generations.
The minister says there is 13,000 km of coastline in Nova Scotia and lots of room for everyone. So it shouldn’t be a problem to find another site. He says the ‘proponent’ (Cooke Aquaculture) chose the site. Tell them to choose to another site.
It would have been as easy as that.
Published on June 11, 2011
Jonathan Riley As Simple as That
The people and communities of Digby Neck and Islands have challenges, including a lack of health care and policing, a declining population, closing schools and a ferry service that sometimes leaves you stranded.
Now along comes a company from New Brunswick, a company that calls itself “the largest fully integrated and independent salmon farming company in North America.”
And they say, “we have the answers, we have jobs.”
And as it turns out, the people of the Islands, don’t have any choice but to accept those farms and any extra challenges that come with them.
More than 80 per cent of the population out there signed a petition against the new salmon leases for Cooke Aquaculture. Eighty per cent is a clear majority, a resounding definite ‘No thanks.’
Despite that, despite articulate and persistent opposition from the people of the Islands, Sterling Belliveau, Nova Scotia’s minister of fisheries approved the leases.
Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the Islands is the paternalistic attitude of the provincial government. Any hope that the NDP would be different has vanished only two years into their government.
Now I don’t pretend to know more about fishing or the ocean or aquaculture or even big business than Belliveau does. He’s got me there.
The big difference between Sterling Belliveau and me is I went down the Islands to talk to the people there about their concerns. Belliveau said it was “more convenient” to meet in Digby.
It wasn’t easy for me to get down there either. I haven’t got a car yet and had to borrow one from a friend, cause I thought the story was that important. I’m pretty sure the minister has a car.
Like Belliveau, when he met them in Digby, I couldn’t give the fishermen and concerned citizens down there any answers. But I went back to Digby and asked those questions to Cooke Aquaculture and to the minister.
They are getting me the answers, they say. Cooke Aquaculture has offered me a trip out to see the site in Grand Passage for myself. I can’t wait.
But let’s get back to the challenges facing Digby Neck and Islands. The people there aren’t sitting around with their hands open, begging for help. They too are working towards solutions, looking for answers, trying to figure out their future.
They see in their community a lot of potential, a lot of positives, a lot of strengths. One of those strengths is a clean productive marine environment that has provided for their community for generations.
The minister says there is 13,000 km of coastline in Nova Scotia and lots of room for everyone. So it shouldn’t be a problem to find another site. He says the ‘proponent’ (Cooke Aquaculture) chose the site. Tell them to choose to another site.
It would have been as easy as that.
Andy Moir on Fish Farms via Dan Mills
Here's a news release we did in reaction to M. Belliveau's interview on CBC the other morning, defending his decision to allow the fish feed lots. Feel free to spread it around. Andy
Minister Belliveau stated that his decision to approve the 2 fish farm sites for St. Mary's Bay was based on sound science. Where is this sound science?
The science/expert advice provided in Transport Canada's Screening Report by DFO Science is rife with statements such as: "Additional research is required", "unknown", "limited data sources", "limited in scope and depth due to time constraints to provide advice", "Not possible with the available information to determine...", "given the available information it is not possible to quantitatively assess the likelihood of risk reduction", etc. If he has in his possession other Science upon which he based his decision, the public wants to see it. If not, his decision was not based on sound science, as he states.
Minister Belliveau stated in his CBC interview yesterday about his approval of 2 ( 1 million each) fish farm sites for St. Mary's that there had been extensive public consultation and all of the concerns of the community and traditional fisheries have been addressed. This is simply not true. I, and over 100 people at the Digby Neck Public consultation meeting in August, 2010 asked relevant questions, and not ONE of us has received an answer to our questions.
When the public is asked to comment/ask questions/state their concerns, but no answers are provided, when requests for information go unanswered, - this is not Public Consultation. Minister Belliveau and his Departments have been made aware of the public's issues and concerns, but have chosen to ignore them; and lie about it.
We have been asked to state our issues and concerns repeatedly, but have been provided no answers. At the 2nd meeting with Minister Belliveau ( April 30), he refused to discuss Transport Canada's Screening Report. He and Deputy Paul LeFleche stated they had not seen it, and yet it had been on-line since April 4. They stated they were meeting again for us to provide information/concerns to them, and again provided no answers to community and fishermen concerns. Minister Belliveau also stated at this meeting that they are just looking at THIS project. We pointed out to him that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act clearly states that cumulative effects must be looked at/assessed. This means that each assessment must consider the interactions among environmental effects of past, current and future projects and activities. Minister Belliveau stated he did not want to discuss any other projects.
Minister Belliveau stated that the footprint of the approved fish farms is very small. This is misleading. These are huge fish farms. The number of fish is 2 million (if NOT overstocked). Not only how much" bottom" is being taken up (which he was talking about) , but the number of fish contained is very important. The greater the number of fish contained, the greater the likelihood of introduction and spread of disease; and in turn, the greater the need to use pesticides to treat farmed fish. These pesticides are then released into the waters and travel away from the cages in plumes, and impact the marine environment. The environmental footprint is vastly larger than the "footprint" as Minister Belliveau stated it , and lead the audience to believe.
Minister Belliveau alluded to "conditions" on the approval that the company will have to follow. And that these conditions will protect the traditional fisheries and the environment. What are these conditions? How will the environment and traditional fisheries/ lobster industry be protected when the standard operating procedures of open-net fish farms pollute and contaminate the environment by releasing waste feed ,fish feces and pesticides into the waters? It is inherent in the operation.
Minister Belliveau states that the monitoring program will ensure that no harm is caused to the environment and traditional fisheries. This monitoring will be conducted by a third party. He does not tell you that this third party is hired by the Company. He states that farms would be shut down if there are adverse effects. He does not tell you at what point he considers there to be adverse effects. He does not tell you that the public has not been given access to these monitoring results. He does not tell you that fish farms with over 70% (and higher )species loss still continue to operate. How is this causing no harm?
When asked: Won't fish feces and feed impact the environment, lobster and traditional fisheries? Minister Bellliveau stated that this has been addressed by DFO, and they have said that there will be no adverse effect. He does not tell you that estimating the amount of fish feces and waste feed that will be produced by these farms is NOT a requirement for the environmental assessment. He does not tell you that environmental impacts away from the cages from fish feces and waste feed were not evaluated. (These particles are resuspended because it is an open-net operation in a fluid environment.) By Cooke's own admission on their new website, each fish produces .8195 kg of fish feces. When you do the math, the amount of fish feces that 2 million salmon would produce is 1639 metric tonnes (and easily another 500 metric tonnes of waste feed) each production cycle. This sounds like a very significant number to ignore in an environmental assessment of impacts...
Minister Belliveau states that privatization of the coast by these aquaculture companies is far from a reality. He does not explain that statement.
It is a reality. He is approving licenses for private companies to operate in the waters which licenses this area only to them. Traditional fishermen are being displaced, and they, and the marine environment on which they rely to survive, are being put in jeopardy by the polluting nature inherent in these open-net fish farm operations.
Minister Belliveau stated that his decision to approve the 2 fish farm sites for St. Mary's Bay was based on sound science. Where is this sound science?
The science/expert advice provided in Transport Canada's Screening Report by DFO Science is rife with statements such as: "Additional research is required", "unknown", "limited data sources", "limited in scope and depth due to time constraints to provide advice", "Not possible with the available information to determine...", "given the available information it is not possible to quantitatively assess the likelihood of risk reduction", etc. If he has in his possession other Science upon which he based his decision, the public wants to see it. If not, his decision was not based on sound science, as he states.
Minister Belliveau stated in his CBC interview yesterday about his approval of 2 ( 1 million each) fish farm sites for St. Mary's that there had been extensive public consultation and all of the concerns of the community and traditional fisheries have been addressed. This is simply not true. I, and over 100 people at the Digby Neck Public consultation meeting in August, 2010 asked relevant questions, and not ONE of us has received an answer to our questions.
When the public is asked to comment/ask questions/state their concerns, but no answers are provided, when requests for information go unanswered, - this is not Public Consultation. Minister Belliveau and his Departments have been made aware of the public's issues and concerns, but have chosen to ignore them; and lie about it.
We have been asked to state our issues and concerns repeatedly, but have been provided no answers. At the 2nd meeting with Minister Belliveau ( April 30), he refused to discuss Transport Canada's Screening Report. He and Deputy Paul LeFleche stated they had not seen it, and yet it had been on-line since April 4. They stated they were meeting again for us to provide information/concerns to them, and again provided no answers to community and fishermen concerns. Minister Belliveau also stated at this meeting that they are just looking at THIS project. We pointed out to him that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act clearly states that cumulative effects must be looked at/assessed. This means that each assessment must consider the interactions among environmental effects of past, current and future projects and activities. Minister Belliveau stated he did not want to discuss any other projects.
Minister Belliveau stated that the footprint of the approved fish farms is very small. This is misleading. These are huge fish farms. The number of fish is 2 million (if NOT overstocked). Not only how much" bottom" is being taken up (which he was talking about) , but the number of fish contained is very important. The greater the number of fish contained, the greater the likelihood of introduction and spread of disease; and in turn, the greater the need to use pesticides to treat farmed fish. These pesticides are then released into the waters and travel away from the cages in plumes, and impact the marine environment. The environmental footprint is vastly larger than the "footprint" as Minister Belliveau stated it , and lead the audience to believe.
Minister Belliveau alluded to "conditions" on the approval that the company will have to follow. And that these conditions will protect the traditional fisheries and the environment. What are these conditions? How will the environment and traditional fisheries/ lobster industry be protected when the standard operating procedures of open-net fish farms pollute and contaminate the environment by releasing waste feed ,fish feces and pesticides into the waters? It is inherent in the operation.
Minister Belliveau states that the monitoring program will ensure that no harm is caused to the environment and traditional fisheries. This monitoring will be conducted by a third party. He does not tell you that this third party is hired by the Company. He states that farms would be shut down if there are adverse effects. He does not tell you at what point he considers there to be adverse effects. He does not tell you that the public has not been given access to these monitoring results. He does not tell you that fish farms with over 70% (and higher )species loss still continue to operate. How is this causing no harm?
When asked: Won't fish feces and feed impact the environment, lobster and traditional fisheries? Minister Bellliveau stated that this has been addressed by DFO, and they have said that there will be no adverse effect. He does not tell you that estimating the amount of fish feces and waste feed that will be produced by these farms is NOT a requirement for the environmental assessment. He does not tell you that environmental impacts away from the cages from fish feces and waste feed were not evaluated. (These particles are resuspended because it is an open-net operation in a fluid environment.) By Cooke's own admission on their new website, each fish produces .8195 kg of fish feces. When you do the math, the amount of fish feces that 2 million salmon would produce is 1639 metric tonnes (and easily another 500 metric tonnes of waste feed) each production cycle. This sounds like a very significant number to ignore in an environmental assessment of impacts...
Minister Belliveau states that privatization of the coast by these aquaculture companies is far from a reality. He does not explain that statement.
It is a reality. He is approving licenses for private companies to operate in the waters which licenses this area only to them. Traditional fishermen are being displaced, and they, and the marine environment on which they rely to survive, are being put in jeopardy by the polluting nature inherent in these open-net fish farm operations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
