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.
Showing posts with label Digby Neck news Brier Island aquaculture fish farms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Digby Neck news Brier Island aquaculture fish farms. Show all posts
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Friday, July 9, 2010
Opposition to Fish Farms
By Tina Comeau
SOU’WESTER
Plans to locate two Atlantic salmon aquaculture farms off the eastern shore of Long Island, N.S. have generated opposition from fishermen and local residents.
Kelly Cove Salmon Ltd., the farming division of Cooke Aquaculture, submitted an application in March to locate two aquaculture sites in Freeport and Grand Passage, off Digby Neck. The company wants to set up two salmon farms with 12 pens each, however it is also exploring whether these sites would be suitable for Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). The company says this is the practice of growing extractive species – commonly mussels and kelps – which act as natural filters alongside fed species like salmon.
The fish farms would each be 42-hectares and would house two million salmon, but the company notes that is the total lease size. It says the salmon pens are a small part of the overall area. According to the company, the entire lease site encompasses the area where the mooring lines for the pens would go. It says fishermen can still come into this area to set traps.
The sites, the company says, would create approximately 20 direct jobs at the farms, and many more indirect spinoff jobs in areas of feed production, trucking, maintenance and site repairs, restaurants and hatcheries.
But lobster fishermen in the area worry about the loss of fishing grounds and also about the impact on the lobster resource.
At a meeting of the Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 34 Advisory Committee in June, lobster fisherman Sheldon Dixon of Tiverton said that 100 per cent of their fishermen were against the proposed fish farms a year ago and nothing over the past year has changed their minds.
“Because of the pollution, because we can’t chance losing our livelihood,” Dixon said as reasons why they don’t want to see the fish farms in their area. Dixon also raised concern over lobsters eating the feed that is used in fish farm operations. “Do we want to be marketing lobsters that are eating this? That’s just what we need with a $3.75 lobster.”
“I really think this project has gone way too far, too early,” added Meteghan fisherman Roger LeBlanc, a port rep on the LFA 34 Advisory Committee. “The government of Nova Scotia and DFO don’t even have science on this . . . Nobody has answers for this.”
Other fishermen at the LFA meeting questioned if there has been a social-economic study carried out. Does anyone know what the impact will be of less lobsters caught in this area? Or is it just assumed the lobsters will be caught elsewhere?
A group called Save Our Bays has also been established and has formed a Facebook group. A posting on that site at the time of the Sou’Wester’s deadline noted a petition against the fish farms with more than 400 signatures had been forwarded to the province’s fisheries and aquaculture minister, along with others.
In addition to concerns over lost fishing grounds and lobster quantity and quality, some other concerns include the disposal of waste, the presence of chemicals and pesticides, and the adverse impact on eco-tourism.
Representatives of Cooke’s Aquaculture were at the LFA 34 meeting to talk about their plans and to try and alleviate concerns that fishermen have. Company representatives have also met with individual fishermen and community members and say they are willing to meet with anyone who has questions about their plans.
“We thought we had a productive committee established with the Brier Island group, including representation from the lobster fishery, however they recently informed us they no longer wish to meet with us. We have to respect their decision, but we’re disappointed,” Chuck Brown, communications manager for Cooke Aquaculture told the Sou’Wester. “We meet with other marine users in all the areas in which we operate. For example, in New Brunswick we meet regularly with fishermen to discuss concerns, anticipate potential conflicts and attempt to find the best ways to cooperate and share the marine resource.”
The company says it will give anyone interested in learning more about salmon farming tours of their operations.
Asked about the concerns being raised by lobster fishermen, the company says the last thing it wants to do is negatively impact the lobster industry.
“Many of our managers and workers are former lobster fishers and have family members who fish today. We all live and work in the communities in which we operate and we know we all have to get along,” said Brown.
In New Brunswick, the company says salmon farmers and lobster fishers have worked together to reduce the loss of fishing grounds and fishermen regularly set traps within 10 to 20 metres of the cages.
“We have installed cages over the props on all of our service vessels to prevent entanglement with fishing gear and our site workers regularly help fishermen retrieve traps should they become entangled in mooring lines,” Brown explained.
SOU’WESTER
Plans to locate two Atlantic salmon aquaculture farms off the eastern shore of Long Island, N.S. have generated opposition from fishermen and local residents.
Kelly Cove Salmon Ltd., the farming division of Cooke Aquaculture, submitted an application in March to locate two aquaculture sites in Freeport and Grand Passage, off Digby Neck. The company wants to set up two salmon farms with 12 pens each, however it is also exploring whether these sites would be suitable for Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). The company says this is the practice of growing extractive species – commonly mussels and kelps – which act as natural filters alongside fed species like salmon.
The fish farms would each be 42-hectares and would house two million salmon, but the company notes that is the total lease size. It says the salmon pens are a small part of the overall area. According to the company, the entire lease site encompasses the area where the mooring lines for the pens would go. It says fishermen can still come into this area to set traps.
The sites, the company says, would create approximately 20 direct jobs at the farms, and many more indirect spinoff jobs in areas of feed production, trucking, maintenance and site repairs, restaurants and hatcheries.
But lobster fishermen in the area worry about the loss of fishing grounds and also about the impact on the lobster resource.
At a meeting of the Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 34 Advisory Committee in June, lobster fisherman Sheldon Dixon of Tiverton said that 100 per cent of their fishermen were against the proposed fish farms a year ago and nothing over the past year has changed their minds.
“Because of the pollution, because we can’t chance losing our livelihood,” Dixon said as reasons why they don’t want to see the fish farms in their area. Dixon also raised concern over lobsters eating the feed that is used in fish farm operations. “Do we want to be marketing lobsters that are eating this? That’s just what we need with a $3.75 lobster.”
“I really think this project has gone way too far, too early,” added Meteghan fisherman Roger LeBlanc, a port rep on the LFA 34 Advisory Committee. “The government of Nova Scotia and DFO don’t even have science on this . . . Nobody has answers for this.”
Other fishermen at the LFA meeting questioned if there has been a social-economic study carried out. Does anyone know what the impact will be of less lobsters caught in this area? Or is it just assumed the lobsters will be caught elsewhere?
A group called Save Our Bays has also been established and has formed a Facebook group. A posting on that site at the time of the Sou’Wester’s deadline noted a petition against the fish farms with more than 400 signatures had been forwarded to the province’s fisheries and aquaculture minister, along with others.
In addition to concerns over lost fishing grounds and lobster quantity and quality, some other concerns include the disposal of waste, the presence of chemicals and pesticides, and the adverse impact on eco-tourism.
Representatives of Cooke’s Aquaculture were at the LFA 34 meeting to talk about their plans and to try and alleviate concerns that fishermen have. Company representatives have also met with individual fishermen and community members and say they are willing to meet with anyone who has questions about their plans.
“We thought we had a productive committee established with the Brier Island group, including representation from the lobster fishery, however they recently informed us they no longer wish to meet with us. We have to respect their decision, but we’re disappointed,” Chuck Brown, communications manager for Cooke Aquaculture told the Sou’Wester. “We meet with other marine users in all the areas in which we operate. For example, in New Brunswick we meet regularly with fishermen to discuss concerns, anticipate potential conflicts and attempt to find the best ways to cooperate and share the marine resource.”
The company says it will give anyone interested in learning more about salmon farming tours of their operations.
Asked about the concerns being raised by lobster fishermen, the company says the last thing it wants to do is negatively impact the lobster industry.
“Many of our managers and workers are former lobster fishers and have family members who fish today. We all live and work in the communities in which we operate and we know we all have to get along,” said Brown.
In New Brunswick, the company says salmon farmers and lobster fishers have worked together to reduce the loss of fishing grounds and fishermen regularly set traps within 10 to 20 metres of the cages.
“We have installed cages over the props on all of our service vessels to prevent entanglement with fishing gear and our site workers regularly help fishermen retrieve traps should they become entangled in mooring lines,” Brown explained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
