Fishermen oppose MPA, we need to pay attention for our sakes.

OldBlackDog

Well-Known Member
Eastern Shore residents, fishermen opposed to designation of Marine Protected Area
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering implementing higher protections on 2,000 square kilometres off the coast of Nova Scotia.
112717-img_4244-fishing-lobster-boat-mg.JPG;w=630

A lobster fishing boat (Meghan Groff/HalifaxToday.ca).
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering implementing higher protections on 2,000 square kilometres off the coast of Nova Scotia.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering implementing higher protections on 2,000 square kilometres off the coast of Nova Scotia.

But not all people who live and work in the communities affected are keen on the project, which would stretch from Clam Harbour to Barren Island.

"In a country that has very poor laws and regulations protecting their waters, it may have some benefit, but not in Canada, we're already protected," says Tim Kaiser, a homeowner and member of the Eastern Shore Fisherman's Protection Association.

The new designated Marine Protected Area (MPA) would be the Eastern Shore Islands MPA.

MPAs are part of Canada's commitment to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) defines an MPA as "part of the ocean that is legally protected and managed to achieve the long-term conservation of nature."

But Kaiser says that there are already enough federal acts in place to prevent the waterways from being exploited.

"Every square inch of Canadian waters are already the most protected waters on the planet," he tells NEWS 95.7's The Rick Howe Show.

Kaiser lists several acts that are already protecting marine habitats off the coast of Nova Scotia: the Shipping Act, the Fisheries Act,the Oceans Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Migratory Birds Act, and more.

"Under each of those acts are thousands of applied regulations," he adds.

For example, Kaiser says that when Right Whales were being hit by ships in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in summer 2017, the regulations under the Fisheries Act came into effect.

"Everything was already in place," he says. "The Canadian Government slowed those ships, they moved fisherman's equipment out of the way to protect the whales."

Kaiser says the government is promoting how much tourism an MPA would bring to the Eastern Shore -- about 30,000 tourists annually.

But he says the community doesn't want tourists who could damage the area's ecosystem.

"We've got 30,000 extra tourists showing up here, driving vehicles burning fossil fuels," Kaiser says. "Then they're going to want to go out on a boat tour, which burns more fossil fuels. Then they're going to do some beach stops, where they're out stomping on the ecosystems and damaging habitats."

Kaiser says even garbage left by tourists and the added amount of sewage in the community could be detrimental to ecosystems.

Although the Eastern Shore MPA is currently only an "area of interest" -- the first stage of becoming an MPA -- in early May over 100 lobster fishermen from the Eastern Shore protested the proposal at a town hall event.

"All the fishermen docked their boats and left their days catch in the water to attend this meeting in protest." says Kaiser. "This is how important they thought it was."


Kaiser says that the Eastern Shore Fisherman's Protection Association has given out over 1,000 signs in protest of the MPA, which are on private properties along Hwy. 7.

"This marine protected area is nothing but a paper park, that the government is using to appease the United Nations," he says. "If they actually cared one bit about these communities, the first thing they would've done is a socio-economic impact study."
 
Last edited:
These are being worked on for the North Coast right now.
They are going to be in the planning stage for the South Coast this summer.

The Greens plan to close a lot more areas to any extraction.

There are NO public meetings at the moment, this is being done in back rooms.

Be very, very nervous!
 
Yup... we have only ONE rec fisherman at the table looking after our interests.. AND YES-- I am nervous. And everyone reading this should be too.
 
Yup... we have only ONE rec fisherman at the table looking after our interests.. AND YES-- I am nervous. And everyone reading this should be too.
Actually there are several folks from the SFAB participating. The NC Chair has been busy visiting local SFAC groups gathering in their input. We have 2 MB members who are leading the charge. That said, we are just volunteers who often can't attend every one of the meetings that are being held on an accelerated timeline. There is a push to have all the "consultation" over with before the pre-election lock down in June. And yet, no face to face in-community public consultations, with opportunity to comment and debate various iterations of the proposed plans. This is very serious stuff, and yet there's this rush to get it done so they can move onto the South. And if rec anglers aren't concerned and involved, you should be. The goal is to set aside 40% of inshore waters, most of which are the most productive fishing areas currently enjoyed by rec anglers.

Much of the preliminary work to identify high value areas was completed by some ENGO's whom engaged a variety of stakeholders to find out where their fishing areas were so they could be protected. The only problem was their effort was highly disingenuous because what they really meant (but was never stated at the time) was we want to protect these areas you fish from YOU.
 
So, here we go again, being out manoeuvred by the Greens.

We have 2 or three people working on this, who are volunteers and not paid.

There is no call to arms to fight this?

Where are the politicians on this?

Where is the information being sent out to all members of the SFAB to become aware?

Why are we not fighting this with the commercial sector as they have as much to loose?

This is politics. Politics is a blood sport.

The Greens are treating it as a blood sport, we on the other hand are just bending over.


Sad.

This rant is over for the moment.
 
We usual get hit with all the information in the last few month before it gets implemented. Then we all put in requests for adjustments, The rec community feels like it's being worked with and promises are made that are adjustments will go in. we make little noise publicly before the implementation.

The goverment likes to put options in all this stuff and it becomes hard to publicly fight it as they usually put some reasonable options in. Then say things publily like no final decisions have been made yet, things could change and we are willing to work with all groups to make things great for everyone. Then at the meetings when everyone is getting all riled up, they say things like no need to worry this is all subject to change, you will still have areas available. Then the volunteers spend countless hours finding logical science based decisions to try to retain some reasonable areas to access. I have now read countless interviews from rec business owners where "behind the scenes" they were told not to worry.

Then we get stabbed in the back and are left scrambling to mount some sort of opposition when the hammer finally lands.

That is how I feel the last few years under this Liberal goverment has gone.

Consultations are crap because they consult based on the options but never consult once the final option has been chosen.
 
Last edited:
P
Actually there are several folks from the SFAB participating. The NC Chair has been busy visiting local SFAC groups gathering in their input. We have 2 MB members who are leading the charge. That said, we are just volunteers who often can't attend every one of the meetings that are being held on an accelerated timeline. There is a push to have all the "consultation" over with before the pre-election lock down in June. And yet, no face to face in-community public consultations, with opportunity to comment and debate various iterations of the proposed plans. This is very serious stuff, and yet there's this rush to get it done so they can move onto the South. And if rec anglers aren't concerned and involved, you should be. The goal is to set aside 40% of inshore waters, most of which are the most productive fishing areas currently enjoyed by rec anglers.

Much of the preliminary work to identify high value areas was completed by some ENGO's whom engaged a variety of stakeholders to find out where their fishing areas were so they could be protected. The only problem was their effort was highly disingenuous because what they really meant (but was never stated at the time) was we want to protect these areas you fish from YOU.

Pat...We have only ONE guy at the table-- I fish with him.... He has been attending the latest meetings solo
 
Now that Canada is at 14% after today’s announcement (exceeding 10%) protected marine areas maybe they’ll forget about the west coast proposals? :p:Do_O Joking obviously
 
Back
Top