|
Once again I rely on Stephen
Hawboldt's reporting ("Mink Farming Regulations
Discriminatory?" Annapolis Spectator, July 18, 2013)
to find out how Council is dealing with the
recommendations by the Citizens' Advisory Council on
Fur Farming which we submitted last April. And
judging by the published remarks of some
Councillors, once again I feel I should jump in and
offer some clarifications.
First off, are our recommendations discriminatory against the mink industry? Well, duh. Our Committee was only dealing with the mink industry, so, by definition, our ideas relate to the mink industry and the mink industry only. Now, can our recommendations be regarded as punitive against the mink industry (which is what I think some Councillors really meant)? Not at all. In virtually every jurisdiction on the planet there are regulations dealing with the local fur industry and the local fur industry only. Locally, just look at Yarmouth and Digby Counties. Some particularly enlightened and ethically advanced states such as the UK, Austria and the Netherlands, among others, have either banned the practice outright, or are phasing it out. I guess you could call that punitive. Councillor Habinski's comments that our "arbitrary" proposed setbacks from property lines are "designed to prevent mink farming" are simply absurd. Clearly he believes that people whose properties border on mink operations don't need the free use and enjoyment of their own land. If you live in Councillor Habinski's district you might want to give him a call and straighten him out on that. True, increased setbacks may make some properties useless for fur farming, but if the land is divided up into such small places in that particular area, maybe fur farming isn't a good fit. And does Councillor Habinski really think that such strong and knowledgeable supporters of local agriculture such as Lloyd Evans, Gordon Jackson and Dr. MacHattie would formulate and support punitive measures against the industry? Councillor Habinski also thinks there is nothing unique about fur farming. Well, where do I start? First, mink (or fox) "farms" produce no food for humans. In that sense they're like wind farms, I suppose. Second, the livestock is carnivorous, unlike all other farm animals. Third, the feed, being meat and fish-based, has to be refrigerated and discarded feed is a health hazard. Fourth, the only part of the animal creating real profit is the pelt - carcasses have to be disposed of. Fifth (and this is a big one) the manure contains 10 to 15 times the concentration of phosphorus than, say, cow manure, and this is a very real hazard to watercourses. Which leads us to Six, the mink industry has so far managed to kill ten lakes and stretches of two rivers in SW Nova Scotia. I've yet to hear of any other agricultural sector seriously harming any water course (other than the continual leakage of fertilizer and farm waste into the Annapolis River). So, please, let's not hear any more nonsense about fur farming being just like any other branch of agriculture. I think we can forgive Councillor Habinski for his lack of knowledge - after all, he, like our other new Councillors, wasn't here for the Great Mink Debate of 2012. He wouldn't have received the many oral and written submissions made to Council by citizens and others outlining and detailing the very specific problems associated with fur farming in this and other jurisdictions. Sadly, Councillors Connell and Fowler have no such excuse. Councillor Connell's suggestion to instead just "lobby the province" to change its regulations is an obvious pass-the-buck ploy. Expecting any more help from the dilatory and uninterested provincial government is, as he well knows, a lost cause. Councillor Heming is dead right in saying that the new provincial regulations are "flawed in science", but we all know they're not going to be tweaked for years. And Councillor Fowler's comment that these recommendations were "holding up progress" is, more or less, a throwback to the old and broken nineteenth-century paradigm of "progress at any cost" that has helped to put the planet in the condition it now is. Clearly, it's time to get on with business - have the County solicitor look over our recommendations to see what can be made of them, formulate workable bylaws, and pass them. Frank Thomas 195 Brooklyn Rd, RR1 Middleton, NS B0S 1P0
|
|
|
Mink Farming Regulations
Discriminatory By Stephen
Hawboldt While
Annapolis County Council will seek the advice of their
solicitor on the possibility of municipal regulation
of the mink industry, many councillors expressed
concern that such regulation may be discriminatory. The
councillors were reacting to the report of the
Annapolis County Citizens’ Advisory on Fur Farming
which made several recommendations in April on the
municipal regulation of the mink industry. In a report
to the July meeting of the committee of the whole
council, the county planner, Albert Dunphy, suggested
that several of the recommendations be reviewed by the
solicitor to ascertain municipal authority. Councillor
Timothy Habinski pointed out that proposed setbacks
from property lines would prevent development of many
potential sites. He said that these setback
recommendations are “arbitrary” and, “designed to
prevent mink farming.” Councillor
Brian “Fuzzy” Connell expressed concern about the
setback recommendations from shorelines. He said that
he would rather lobby for changes to the provincial
regulations than
develop “our own” rules. Councillor Wayne Fowler
suggested that these recommendations were, “holding up
progress.” Habinski
told the council there was nothing unique to mink
farming that makes it different from any other
livestock operation. He asked, “why is mink farming
different?” Councillor
Alex Morrison said the provisions are
“discriminatory.” Councillor Gregory Heming said the
provincial regulations are “flawed in science,” and
“discriminatory again one industry.” On
motion of Heming and Deputy Warden Marilyn Wilkins,
the county solicitor was formally asked to review
several of the recommendations of the Citizens’
Advisory Committee. This review will focus on the
legislative capacity of the municipality to develop
regulations respecting building code requirements
for buildings and waste management. Councillors Martha
Roberts along with Fowler and Morrison opposed this
referral to the solicitor. The
county planner, Albert Dunphy told committee of the
whole council last week that in 2012, 25 building
permits were awarded to eight different fur farming
operators from Falkland Ridge to Bear River. The
estimated value for these permits was $2.9 million and
the municipality received $9400 in permit fees. Of
these original permits, occupancy permits have been
issued for two building and nine other structures are
under construction. Because construction was not
started within one year, 12 permits have expired and
two others will follow unless work is begun before
October. The
Annapolis County Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Fur
Farming was established just over a year ago when some
citizens expressed concern over the rapid expansion of
the mink industry into Annapolis County. Its role was
to advise the municipal council on how to best manage
the expansion of the industry in Annapolis County. The
committee was chaired by livestock farmer Gordon
Jackson. Other members included Lloyd Evans, president
of the Annapolis County Federation of Agriculture, Dr.
Dave MacHattie, a local livestock veterinarian who
also works in the mink industry and citizen
representatives Frank Thomas, Brooklyn Road and Jason
Roche. Lawrencetown. |
|
|
April 10, 2013 Mink manure is the focus of the recommendations of the Annapolis County Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Fur Farming that were made to Annapolis County Council earlier this week. The committee told council that due to “conflicting information,” there are no recommendations on water quality issues http://www.annapoliscountyspectator.ca/News/2013-04-10/article-3217375/County-council-receives-mink-recommendations/1 |
|
|
|