Community ignored in process—Islanders



Rikki Clements has not had a positive experience with the fish farm in her front yard. Jonathan Riley photo

Rikki Clements has not had a positive experience with the fish farm in her front yard. Jonathan Riley photo

Published on June 11, 2011
Published on June 11, 2011
Jonathan Riley  RSS Feed
Topics :
Grand Passage , Bay Coastal Alliance , Nova Scotia , New Brunswick , Brier Island

People living and working closest to two newly approved salmon farm leases don’t want the salmon farms.

More than 80 per cent of the population of Long and Brier islands and all of the lobster fishermen last year signed a petition against the project.

Despite the local opposition, Nova Scotia’s minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Sterling Belliveau, approved the two leases for Cooke Aquaculture this week. That gave the New Brunswick company the go-ahead to install salmon farms on two sites covering a total of 84 hectares (209 acres) in St. Mary’s Bay, just around Dartmouth Point from Freeport and Westport.

Rikki Clements, who lives about 300 metres from a Cooke Aquaculture salmon farm already in operation in Grand Passage near Westport, says the people on Brier Island are easy going and don’t like to complain.

“We are a fishing community and we’re used to the noise and smells of fishing, but this is something else. It stinks, the smell is coming right in the house. The beach here is covered in slime.”

She believes the smell and slime are there because the site has never been properly left fallow or rested.

 “They have let it fallow maybe 15 days out of the last 10 years. They have pushed it to the max.”

She worries what the two new farms, each eight times bigger than the Grand Passage site, will do to traditional lobster fishing grounds in St. Mary’s Bay.

“What they have done here (in Grand Passage), what they’re doing in New Brunswick and what they are proposing to do out there (in St. Mary’s Bay), is not safe, it’s not environmentally sustainable, it’s not good.”

David Tudor of Freeport, the  area’s Municipality of Digby councilor, says the local view of the Grand Passage site has not been positive.

“It’s been a disaster—very few jobs and so many issues. It’s almost never been fallowed, but they can get away with that because there is just no regulation here in Nova Scotia. It’s the wild west.”

Tudor says he doesn’t speak for municipal council but in his own personal opinion there should have been more study and more meaningful consultation.

“In my personal opinion, I think if this project is as great as they say it is, or bad as they say it is, then a joint panel review (provincial and federal) was the way to go.

“A joint panel review would have allowed us to get to the bottom of this but there was no interest on the part of the province to really look into the long-term environmental effects or the socio-economic impacts. They didn’t want to know.”

Primarily, the people of the Islands are worried what impact the new farms will have on the traditional lobster fishery, the mainstay of the islands’ economy.

Tudor says the federal screening was more about fish farms than about lobster.

“They studied how the environment would affect the salmon, not how the salmon would affect the environment.”

Sheldon Dixon, a fisherman from Tiverton, says the federal study was “no better than a grade 5 book report.”

“We’ve got a $400 million dollar fishery here in LFA 34,” says Dixon. “We have a beautiful pristine lobster ground here. I’m proud to say we have the best lobster in the world for eating. Why would you want to do anything to put that at risk?

“If the lobster goes, there will be nothing here in Freeport. What are we supposed to do? Go to work at a minimum wage on a salmon farm? That’s what they want.”

Belliveau says there will be a strict monitoring program.

“The company has to abide by the conditions or the lease will be terminated, though I’m confident we won’t be in that position,” Belliveau said “We did our homework. We’re there to protect the environment and the traditional fishery in a suitable manner.

“We made this decision in the best interest of the people of Nova Scotia. We listened to the fishermen and special interest groups and we have captured their concerns in the conditions of the lease agreement.”

Tudor says it would have been nice if the minister had actually visited the community.

“He was in Digby a couple times, but he was never on Long Island or Brier Island. Not once.”

Karen Crocker of Freeport, chair of the St. Mary’s Bay Coastal Alliance, says none of the concerns in hundreds of letters or requests for additional information have ever been addressed.

“We have received no feedback at all. His staff took our questions and said, ‘Good question’ but we never got even a bad answer. When we met with him in Digby, he refused to comment until he had read the federal reports. Then he got the reports and approved the leases. For the minister to state that he has met with the community and alleviated the concerns of fishers and community members is not true.”

She says if the minister is in possession of good science which would reassure the people of the Islands, then he should share it with them.

“No one knows what the long-term cumulative effects of these farms will be,” she says. “In 10 years’ time when we are hauling up empty traps, maybe we’ll know, but it will be too late.”

Comments

  • Username
    Equator
    - June 14, 2011 at 10:41:55

    An inshore lobster fisherman, does not a Minister of Fisheries make. In years to come he will be the "Fall Guy," too bad i really thought he could do the job...

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Mary Russell
    - June 14, 2011 at 10:41:43

    It sounds like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the east coast of Canada etal, is suffering the same malady as here in British Columbia;-- the morphing of the honorable Department of Fisheries and Oceans into the Destroyer of Fisheries and Oceans via a political decison to foster fish farming over the very survival of our wild salmon and the golden chain of life they uphold, including mankind. There will be no win win situation here-- it is all about DFO "creating the conditions for success" for this foreign owned fish farming industry, and this includes expansion on a scale to compete on the world stage--which would be the death knell of wild salmon and marine health. Science, commonsense, the intrinsic worth of our existing wild resouces are not in the equation, nor the sustainablity of coastal communities, The internal rot at the heart of DFO appears incurable, and today if you put your ear to the ground can be heard the mournful tolling of the same bell that saw the destruction of the East coast cod-- a disgrace and a tragedy that was entirely preventable. Here on the west coast of Canada, our magnificent five races of wild Pacific salmon are under seige by an increasingly pushy yet unaccountable fish farming industry with the blessing of the DFO and both the federal and provincial governments. Therefore it appears from coast to coast that only we the people can this nightmare around. We must unite in a fusion and a fission of outrage against the expansion of open net cage regimes proven destrutive to the wild and sustainability the world around. We must unite in numbers as the stars. We must fill the streets for miles, fill fax machines with messages till they wear out, fill the airwaves and blister the ears of parliament in a tidal wave of fury that will blow the effigies at the helm right off the stage. There must be hundreds and thousands of discouraged DFO personnell and free thinkers yearning to do the right thing by our wild fisheries and their environment, and from there with a likemined public, a true course to sustainability ahd a future worth having can be won, "Change is but the summation of our decisions" !

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Ralph Sabean
    - June 14, 2011 at 10:07:02

    If we know that government don't really care that much about what we say about the Salmon Farms which I too am against but for a different reason. I don't think they will kill any lobsters and may actually make the fishing better because lobsters will eat anything including human corpses. What it may do is cause some of the lobsters to get some of the antibiotics that are put in the fish food and this will in the long run cause more problems than good as we already know concerning fish, chickens, cows, and probably a lot more. You see they feed the fish as well as the other antibiotics even when they don't need it so they are causing more problems and new diseases because of it. What they should do is use safer ways to keep fish although a little less profitable. The fish should be taken to open waters where fishermen don't fish or rarely fish. Then they should be put in much, much larger farms so they won't be over crowded. then discontinue using antibiotics and cull sick fish instead of trying to keep them healthy. The natural immune system is far better to heal than anything else as we all know. For example if we use radiation and chemo therapy on people to fight cancer it may work well on a few but some it won't and may even bring on their demise faster. However if we can eradicate the cancer by building up our own immune system it will return the person to a healthy state with no side-affects. This cannot always be done but in the cases it does it works way better and if caught early like right now when you aren't fighting cancer then your chances of getting cancer are most often nullified. What the lobster fishermen should do is use their money in The Very High Paying business today to build their own fish farms and possibly even lobster farms if not other types. Perhaps they could grow their own herring and use them for lobster bait saving much money and possibly having an onshore or near shore business to keep them in off season times.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Fred Horner
    - June 11, 2011 at 20:19:53

    i agree with David,a joint panel review should be a demand of the people and the Gov. should comply to that demand,as they did with the proposed rock quarry on Digby Neck that was rejected because some silt from the rock may seep into the water or birds may collide with light poles on the property,a rare plant might exist and there may have been a grave there. Compare that with the impact of aquaculture,that is well known. Put your cards on the table Sterling!

    Submit a Comment

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 Sou'Wester 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..

(we keep all emails private)
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.

I agree with these conditions.

More

  • No available services

Advertising

Ad Finder

May 18th 2012

View our Newspaper ads

Advertising