A network of environmental and community organizations is objecting to what it labels the hasty adoption of a flawed Fur Industry Act for Nova Scotia.
Bill 53 was introduced for first reading on April 29 and passed by the House of Assembly on May 6. Although the Department of Agriculture worked closely with the Nova Scotia Mink Breeders Association for over a year to develop the bill, members of the public, including members of the affected communities were not consulted.
“It is ironic that a law intended to address community concerns has been pushed through without due consultation with those communities or environmental experts,” said Steve Hawboldt of the Clean Annapolis River Project.
“The act has value but there are a number of changes that would have taken seriously the need to ensure environmental protection and addressed community concerns.”
It is ironic that a law intended to address community concerns has been pushed through without due consultation with those communities or environmental experts. - Steve Hawboldt of the Clean Annapolis River Project
Community groups rallied last year when toxic ‘blue-green’ algae (cyanobacteria) blooms occurred again in the Wentworth and Carleton river watershed near Yarmouth.
An Environment department study of nine lakes in the affected watershed included the recommendation that large suspect contributors of nutrients to the lakes, including mink farms and a mink food processing facility, should be further investigated and where appropriate and possible, discharges reduced or eliminated.
Gretchen Fitzgerald, executive director of Sierra Club Atlantic, says the intensity of mink farming has soared in the last few years, with 1.7 million mink processed in Nova Scotia last year.
Consultation over the handling of residual products from any industry can continue ad-laudum. Science, by definition, is the forming of an opinion, the collection of data, and the observation of proof or refute of the opinion. Pollution in the Carleton Watershed cannot be laid at the feet of any one contributor. So, to hold up protective legislation, for both community and industry benefit, in the name of science could actually be more harmful than taking positive action. Industry memebers from the NSMBA were also concerned with the expedient nature of the adoption of Bill 53. The lobby groups demanded action from government, got action and now they are still complaining. Makes me question the motives of the lobby groups - is it protection or is there a personal axe to gring?