Salmon tankfarm opponents are rightfully livid over Maine DEP's acting chief Melanie Loyzim's actions on the controversial salmon tank farm plans by Nordic Aquaculture proposed to discharge into Belfast Bay Loyzim denied out of hand petitions from Maine Lobstering Union and Upstream Watch requesting (1) a public hearing and (2) intervenor status. She also declared there was little public interest or controversy, recommending against MLU's request that BEP assume jurisdiction of the review of the project its proposed outfall's proposed contents and its baywater intake.
Read MLU's and Upstream Watch petitions here
Loyzim used indefensible assertio.ns that there was no possible significance to the effluvia of up to 20 million fish per year in the proposed CAFO tanks - largest ever in the United States - discharging out a single pipeline into the bay 24/7. What could go wrong?
Raising and slaughtering up to 20 million fish per year at Nordic and Whole Oceans - one at each end of Penobscot Bay's estuary - is nothing special, Loyzim asserted in her letter to conservation attorney Kim Tucker. Just like any little existing fishfarm, Loyzim smirked, enjoying her brief moment of ecological vandalism at the helm of the disfunctional-under-Lepage agency.
One remembers the good old days of Late McKernan Early Angus King , early baldacci, when the Board of Environmental Protection performed its duty and routinely heard citizen appeals - I actually won a special condition added to MBNA's Ducktrap Mtn guest cottage rush job tht was sprawling into an important deer wintering area No more cottages, BEP announced. How MBNA's VP Shane Flynn howled!
One remembers the good old days of Late McKernan Early Angus King , early baldacci, when the Board of Environmental Protection performed its duty and routinely heard citizen appeals - I actually won a special condition added to MBNA's Ducktrap Mtn guest cottage rush job tht was sprawling into an important deer wintering area No more cottages, BEP announced. How MBNA's VP Shane Flynn howled!
Mr. Huber, If you have some specific knowledge of these facilities causing harm to the bay you should make it public. Everything I've seen to date has been misrepresentations or outright lies. The effluent might well be cleaner than the intake according to Scientific American. RAS will give the local fish a break and is the way fish will be raised in the future by all accounts. The regulations are in place to make sure things are done right and you should not be part of the fear mongering. If you've got something contrary let's see it instead of whining that you didn't get your way.
ReplyDelete"specific knowledge" Not one operates on the river or bay, so what I write is of course precautionary.
Delete"effluent might be cleaner" In other words "would be sterilized" What some might consider "dirty water" others would consider "living water". Even at depth. filtered irradiated and returned with a different chemical load. Will tankfarms be producing dead zones?
How about some actual facts - object, verifiable, scientifically valid facts - supporting what you allege. While Nordic seems ready, willing and able to provide just that for their assertions, I never quite see the same level of evidentiary support from the opponents. So, what do you have?
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, using the word "slaughter" to describe harvesting of fish by Nordic kind of tips everyone off that you are not even attempting to be objective. Indeed, using a word that is defined as "the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage" to describe the fish farm is a blatantly obvious and ham fisted way to try to sway opinion using emotionally charged words. Emotion laden arguments are typically the last refuge of people who don't have actual facts to persuade others of the validity of their position.
I have yet to see Nordic resort to such dishonest methods. Rather, they seem more than able to provide facts to support everything they are proposing to do in Belfast. The same cannot be said of their opponents.
You're being dishonest in this blog-they stated that the appeal had to meet 3 out of 4 criteria and they listed two straight away that didn't. You've made up responses to fit your prejudice. Try telling the truth about RAS. The naysayers have stolen the honest debate by throwing all kinds of crap against the wall hoping to kill these facilities with lies. These two projects have the potential to give better lives to hundreds of families in Waldo Cty. They may be the best things to ever happen here. There is plenty of impartial data out there to show these are good opportunities for all of Maine.
ReplyDeleteI rather think you are consciously or unconsciously projecting the RAS wannabees' dishonest practices (which are legion) onto me.
Delete