Introduction      

          On February 1, 2013, a few of us concerned citizens met to discuss issues with the new regulations pertaining to the province's new Fur Industry Act. We have all had a chance individually to look over the document, and we have all found shortcomings, so we felt that it was time to sit down together and pick out exactly what was wrong with them, and, just as importantly, how to fix them. Our first draft then went off to a number of other people who have been expressing interest and concerns about the new mink regulations even before they were proclaimed in January. We've had support, encouragement and contributions to this document from many of these people, and we thank them all.

          A word about us as a group. We represent a variety of professional and personal interests. Many are retired and some are from other parts of Canada and beyond. A great many are native Nova Scotians. We are (or were) farmers, accountants, in the military, technicians, realtors, law enforcement officers, housewives and househusbands, animal care workers, entrepreneurs, students, scientists, business professionals, nurses, teachers, and on and on. In other words, a cross section of the population of this province, with a wide range of life experience. Some of us are members of citizens' groups such as the Tricounty Watershed Protection Association, the Tusket River Environmental Protection Association, or NGO's such as the Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP). Most are just private citizens.

          In the creation of this document we consulted two local specialists, such as Dr. Mike Brylinsky, Research Associate at the Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research in Wolfville and Dr. Gordon R. Brewster, Associate Professor (Soil Science), Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Dalhousie University in Truro, both of whom we thank very much for their insights and contributions. Other data, facts and figures we gleaned from various government and academic water and soil quality sites on the internet.

          We've been brought together over the past few years by a common concern with the way some operators in the mink industry were treating the natural environment, and, in some cases, their neighbourhoods. We got upset, spoke to municipal councillors and the provincial government, especially the Department of Agriculture (DoA). "Don't worry" we were told, "Soon there'll be a new Fur Industry Act and all these problems will be addressed." Life went on, the problems went on, lakes died, and some mink mills continued to produce flies and smells in abundance.

          We continued to complain, and the province responded with "Well, you know we haven't produced the actual regulations for the Act yet, so just be patient. All will be well."

          Now that the regulations are finally out, it turns out all may not be so well. The sixteen pages of the new regulations are riddled with loopholes for the industry and ways for the DoA to avoid any serious inconvenience to this powerful lobby. Which means that residents' wells, our ability to freely enjoy the use of our own properties, the value of our real estate, the very air we breathe, and our soil and waterways are still at risk.

          A long and careful analysis of these regulations has enabled us to find a number of very specific shortcomings, and importantly, how to rectify them. In the following section we list each problem with reference to its section in the regulations document, and offer solutions to them. We're not saying that all these solutions will be easy or cost-free for mink operators. But they're all eminently achievable and will only serve, in the long run, to make this industry more modern, more socially and environmentally responsible, and eliminate the kinds of neighbourhood problems and conflicts we've been seeing.

          There's no reason why the Nova Scotian mink industry can't be a model for this activity in the rest of Canada, and even the world. Other jurisdictions, such as certain European nations, have hosted successful, lucrative and environmentally responsible mink industries for decades, with very rigorous regulatory regimes. 

          Main Points

1. Under Qualifications for designated professionals (Section 5 subsection c)  "completion of the seminar conducted by the Department respecting fur industry requirements". It seems that this seminar was presented only once

          The regulations do not stipulate that this seminar will be repeated as necessary to train new "designated professionals" .

2. Under Training for monitoring programs (Section 6) "all training in monitoring and testing water and soil must be conducted to the satisfaction of the Administrator".

          There should be a requirement that only people trained in these fields by properly accredited educational institutions be involved in the water and soil monitoring processes, eliminating the need of "to the satisfaction of the Administrator".

          One concern with this expressed by Dr. Mike Brylinsky of Acadia University is that some, if not all, of the individuals that will or have received this training are employed by the same companies that have or will be designing the nutrient-containment systems. This can be seen as a conflict of interest since they may sample at times and places when they feel the system is working at its highest efficiency.

3. Under Applying for License (Section 7(1)) subsection b "if a groundwater monitoring program is required…."

          A groundwater monitoring program should be required in all cases, for the protection of aquifers and drinking water sources, as we detail below under Groundwater  monitoring program.

4. Under Suspending or revoking licence (Section 13(1)) "the Administrator may suspend for up to 1 year or revoke a licence if an inspection discloses……..". 

          While we agree wholeheartedly with the idea of revocation or suspension of licences, it seems that that's the only "big stick" the administrator wields, and it seems highly unlikely that such a major penalty would ever be invoked by the same Department that acts as the mentor and patron of the whole industry. There needs to be some fines set out, and worded so that an ongoing offence gets a fine every day while the offence goes on. This would encourage a rapid fix to whatever the problem is.

5. Under Site Approval Permits (Section 15(1)) "An operator with fewer than 100 prescribed animals in their breeding herd is exempt from the requirement in Subsection 9(1A) of the Act to hold a site approval permit and the requirement in Section 33 of the Act to develop and follow a management plan".

          We believe this entire exemption should be done away with. A small herd of under 100 animals can quickly grow into a herd of substantially more, and waste feed, feces and carcasses still need to be disposed of properly. Also, if an individual live traps and wants to keep for a pet a single wild mink, they need a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. So why should somebody be able to keep 99 of the same animals in order to kill them for their pelts be able to do so with no regulation?

6. Under Site Approval Permits (Section 15(2) "The Administrator may exempt an operator……if the Administrator determines that the proposed activity of the fur farm will have minimum impact on the surrounding environment"

          There being no definition of "minimum impact on the surrounding environment" this section is little more than a very large loophole to allow operators to get away with no site approval permit or management plan. Section 15(2) should simply be eliminated, thereby making 15(3) also pointless. 

7. Under Applying for site approval permit or amended site approval permit (Section 19(1) subsection c(iv). "each watercourse, body of water and well that is reasonably known to the operator to be within 100m of either side of the boundary line of the (mink) property…….".

          100 m is an inadequate separation distance for the protection of wells and waterways, particularly when differences in elevation are involved. We've seen videos of trails of mink waste much longer than this leading down to and into lakes.  It would be safer to list (and monitor) all waterways within 500 m of a mink facility.

8. Under Liquid feces storage system (Section 24(3))  "…the Administrator may exempt the operator from the requirements of subsection (2) after the end of the 3-year period……"

          This means that uncovered, earthen liquid manure pits will still be permitted even after 3 years, or, in other words, indefinitely. This is completely unacceptable. There is no reason why we cannot expect mink operators to re-invest some of their substantial incomes into proper, covered, concrete systems within 3 years of the date of the regulations.

9. Under Carcass disposal (Section 27) " each carcass……must be disposed of at an approved disposal facility or by on-farm composting"

          There is no need to allow on-farm composting of carcasses. This has been hugely problematic in the past (and still is at some sites.) Facilities exist to take this material, and sufficient refrigerated storage can be made available on all mink sites.

          On-site carcass disposal increases the risks of spreading diseases to the mink herd and to neighbouring wildlife populations, since the only carcasses in need of disposal on site are those that died prematurely of disease/illness. (No other carcasses are disposed of on-site as they accompany the pelts to the pelting plant.)

10. Under Surface water monitoring program (Section 28 subsection d) "surface water discharges must be sampled and tested in May and November each year……unless otherwise directed by the Administrator".

          Biannual surface water testing can not catch pollution events in any sort of timely manner. A noxious waste runoff event that begins July 1 can theoretically go on until November 30 before detection. A good sampling regime would be monthly from May to October, and bi-monthly for the remainder of the year (Brylinsky, pers. comm.).

11. Under Groundwater monitoring program (Section 29(1)) "If the Administrator determines……"

          A groundwater testing program, at the same frequency as surface water testing, should be mandatory at every site, not left to the whim of the Administrator. Already in Kings county, areas of farmland have become oversaturated with phosphates as a result of overuse of chicken manure. The same can easily happen to other areas from leaching of mink waste into ground water, particularly where soils  are more porous or sandy. Once an aquifer is polluted, you can't unring that bell. Mandatory groundwater monitoring, at the same frequency as surface water testing, can and will minimize this risk.

          Furthermore, there is no provision of testing for coliforms in ground water, a provision which should be part of all such testing.

          A baseline , full-spectrum ground water testing program for each new mink site is required. Such an undertaking would establish the nature and quantities of selected elements in the ground water before the mink operation begins.

12. Under Administrator may order random water tests (Section 30) "At any time, on a random basis, the Administrator may require…."

          There should be no "may" about it. Random tests of surface water should be conducted at each site on an annual basis.

13. Under Surface Water Concentration Limits (Section 31, Table) "Total phosphorus Concentration Limit - 20 ug/L"

          If this amount was entirely present as inorganic phosphorus, which is highly labile for uptake by algae, as opposed to total phosphorus which is less easily available for algal uptake, it would be an equivalent value to what has been found in the eutrophic lakes in Yarmouth county already killed by the mink industry. Clearly this limit is far too high, since such an allowable limit would eventually contribute to eutrophication of any fresh water system it would enter, and excess amounts of inorganic phosphorus are well-documented risk factors for the formation of cyanobacterial blooms, with their attendant toxins. Levels of phosphorus in mink site effluent should be well below 20 ug/L and not more than 20 percent should be the highly labile or easily changed inorganic form (Brylinsky, pers. comm.).

          Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply have a requirement that surface water samples must conform to drinking water standards as set out by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME)?

14. Under Soil monitoring program (Section 35 subsection c) "soil must be sampled and tested every 3 calendar years……."

          A lot of damage to ground water can occur in 3-year intervals between sampling. Soil sampling should take place annually. For more about this, see #16 below.

15. Under Administrator may order random soil tests (Section 36) "At any time, on a random basis, the Administrator may…."

          Again, there should be no "may" about it. Random soil tests should be done at each site at least once during the year.

16. Under When soil sample phosphate levels exceeds concentration limits (Section 37) The upper limit of soil test phosphorus (STP) of 800 kg/ha ( or ~ 1760 lb/ 2.2 acres = 800 lb/acre) as stated in the regulations is far too high. A simple Google search on the topic yielded a host of agricultural soil studies, such as this one.      

          In a recent study by agronomists at the the University of Arkansas (Daniels, Daniel, et al., n.d.*) a level of 300 lb/acre is considered the upper limit of safety, and does not take into account how much of this may be lost to runoff into nearby watercourses. Therefore, the regulations' limit of 800 lb/acre is far in excess of safe limits to prevent soil phosphatization and runoff-based eutrophication of the watershed. The Arkansas study, in fact, stresses the danger to watersheds since they tend to receive runoff from a large area which may contain multiple phosphorus-source sites.

          There is lots of scientific literature available which stresses that over-application of phosphates has negative effects on soil and results in phosphate runoff. Annual application rates for phosphates should be no more than about 180 kg/ha for forage crops and no more than 250 kg/ha for vegetable crops assuming that there was minimal phosphorus in the soil to start with (Brewster, pers. comm.)

17. Under Minimum separation distances (Section 41)

          In all cases in the table given where 50 m is the MSD (such as distance from a solid feces storage structure to a property line), this should be increased to at least 200 m. (Some of our contributors would prefer to see such MSD's increased to 800 m). 50 m from a property line means, essentially, that part of the "stink and fly" zone which exists around most mink facilities overlies neighbouring properties, causing neighbours to lose the free and unhindered use of a large part of their own land. This is unacceptable. The "stink and fly" zone around each mink site should be confined to the site itself, and a 100 m MSD to a property line is an absolute minimum requirement to that.

          Also, 50 m is an inadequate MSD to watercourses or off-site wells from covered or uncovered liquid feces storage structures or animal housing structures. In Yarmouth Municipality, a county bylaw now requires an MSD of just over 150 m. The provincial standard should be at least this amount, and more, up to 500 m, where there is an elevation difference of more than 10 m, because of increased runoff potential. All other MSD's should be at least 200 m (and greater where elevation, soil porosity, herd size, and other factors come into play) except in cases where they've already been designated as 300 m. 

18. Under Waste feed disposal (Section 43) "waste feed must be disposed of …or by on-farm composting"

          Again, such composting has been problematic in the past. It should simply be refrigerated until it can be shipped out. Waste feed, because of the so-called 'super-phosphates" additive, when composted, can be a major source of inorganic phosphates as it leaches into surface, and eventually ground water. This is one of the most environmentally damaging substances produced on mink sites, so must simply be kept refrigerated until shipped out.

19. Under Appeal panel (Section 46(4)) "The quorum for the appeal panel is 1 person."

          The stupidity of this is obvious. The quorum should be, at the minimum, 2 people of which one is the community representative. There should be a pool of several people of each of the four categories in the panel appointed to ensure more complete participation in appeal panels when they do meet.

20. Under Fees (Section 50)

          Regarding "amended permits", "initial licence or licence renewal", "amendment of licences terms and conditions", "addition or removal of operator from licence" and "transfer of licence to another operator"; all these fees should be increased to $500 in line with initial permit fees, and to bring them more into line with similar licensing fees for many other activities in this province. Many professional and trades people have to pay substantially higher fees than these for engaging in activities that pose no threat to environments or communities. With an average annual income of well over $1,000,000 for mink licensees, this fee structure seems absurdly low.

          Issues not addressed in the Regulations

          In addition to these specific problems in the regulations as they now stand, there are a number of issues not addressed at all, which must be included in the revised version. Many of these "missing" issues, such as air quality, were addressed in the early drafts of the regulations but were then removed for reasons we can only guess at.

1. There should be a requirement for mink operators to post a cash bond with municipalities (or the province) to cover the anticipated costs of environmental cleanup if and when required during the life of the enterprise, and to cover site cleanup when the facility shuts down.

2. Old-style, non-enclosed barns should be fenced in, with the fence height taking into account average snowfall accumulation. This would be a big step in improving biosecurity for mink operators.

3. All animal escapes should be reported to the host municipality within 24 hours of the discovery of the escape.

4. The results of all water and soil monitoring programs should be copied to the relevant department of the host municipality.

5. All concrete feces storage systems must be emptied and thoroughly inspected by an engineer every ten years, and repaired or replaced as necessary.

6. The total herd size of any mink operation at a given site should not exceed 100,000 animals.

7. Nowhere in the regulations is there any mention of air quality monitoring or testing, a very important requirement for people living next door to some of these facilities.

8. In the whole discussion of site approval, there is no stated intention for the protection of endangered species or species at risk or their habitats or wetlands in general as defined by the Department of Natural Resources. This must be in there, as it would be for  almost any other industrial activity in the province, and the mink industry has shown itself to be one of the most dangerous to the environment. No other industry yet has killed ten lakes and much of two rivers in this province.

9. It is important that owner/operators of mink facilities be clearly identified at each site, to facilitate communications with neighbours who wish to voice concerns. It should be in the regulations that each mink facility post clearly legible signage at their main or front gate clearly identifying the site as a mink facility and carrying the name and contact information of the licensee, the site manager (if separate from the licensee), the number of animals for which the site is licensed, and the name and contact information of the Department of Agriculture Fur Farm Administrator. This would go a long way to making these facilities less a subject of fear and apprehension to the surrounding community, and greatly enhance the ability of local people to voice whatever concerns they may have regarding the site's operation, and the ability of the owner to address these issues before they become a matter for the Department of Agriculture or other regulatory agencies. 

10. A large amount of the problematic phosphates produced by mink operations are actually added as so-called "super-phosphates" to the mink feed, apparently as a sort of preservative. Why not simply ban the use of this in feed, thereby removing most of the problem at the source?

11. It appears that in many mink sites, a great deal of manure is simply left on the ground between barns, which never gets adequately cleaned up, and this appears to be an acceptable part of waste management plans. We have a copy of a waste management plan done by an engineering firm for a mink site in SW nova Scotia which states that some 75 tons of manure per year would be simply left on the ground, and thus be subject to runoff. In this case, one could expect the site's soil to rapidly become over-enriched in phosphates. Here, however, the site was very close to a lake, so much of the excess phosphates were simply expected to make their way to the water. This was a facility that housed about 45,000 animals at peak, producing some 471 tons of manure per year. We remind the reader that there are many far larger such sites in the province, and many of these are situated on lakefronts. Clearly such cleanup efforts are inadequate for environmental protection, and much more rigorous efforts should be mandated.

          Probably most important of all, and the real source of most of the problems in the past, is the absolute absence of penalties for infractions in these regulations. As we discussed above, yes, the Administrator may suspend or revoke licenses, but is this actually ever going to happen?  He needs a range of effective regulatory deterrents. Substantial fines for infractions regarding discharge of waste or other parameters will deter violations. Such a table of penalties is desperately needed, and is in place in other jurisdictions that host this industry. And these penalties must be pyramidal - a fine can and should be imposed for each and every day a given offence continues. That way there's a real incentive to fix the problem and fix it fast.

          In Conclusion

          We believe that with the proper amendments to the Regulations Respecting the Fur Industry, as set out in this document, future conflicts with citizens can be minimized, environments and neighbourhoods protected, and the mink industry allowed to operate in a responsible yet profitable manner. Failure to implement all of these recommended changes will only perpetuate the civil conflicts and deleterious environmental effects which have characterized this important industry in recent years, needlessly putting at risk the health of citizens, the agricultural soils and the waterways of this province.

          There's really no good reason for the provincial government not to get this right. In this document we show them how to fix this problem. Now it's their turn.

Signed,

Some concerned citizens of Southwest Nova Scotia

(F.C. Thomas, Brooklyn, Annapolis County, corresponding author)

* Daniels, M., Daniel, T., Carman, D., Morgan, R., Langston, J., VanDevender, K., n.d. Soil Phosphorus Levels: Concerns and Recommendations University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service, Agriculture and Natural Resources Fact Sheet.