west isles marine park public comments

8/12/2019 West Isles Marine Park Public Comments

1/60

WEST ISLESFEASIBILITY STUDY

A STUDY TO ASSESS THE FEASIBILITY OFESTABLISHING A NATIONAL MARINE PARK

N THE WEST ISLES AREA OFTHE BAY OF FUNDY, NEW BRUNSWICK

TASK REPORT

I Parks Pares f t Tourism Tourisme.... .. Canada Canada New Brunswick Nouveau Brunswick


2/60

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTSFROM OPEN HOUSES AND PUBLIC MEETING JUNE 984

WEST ISLESFEASIBILITY STUDY

A STUDY TO ASSESS THE FEASIBILITY OFESTABLISHING A NATIONAL MARINE PARK

IN THE WEST ISLES AREA OFTHE BAY OF FUNDY, NEW BRUNSWICK

TASK REPORT

Parks TourismCanada New Brunswick


3/60

FOREWORD' rde West I s l e s F e a s i b i l it y Study was in i t i a ted by the fede ra l Minis te r o f the Environment responsib le for Parks ranada and the New Brunswick M in i st e r o f Tourism in November, 1983. The purpose of the s tudy i s to assess the f e a s ib i l i t y of es tab l i sh ing a nat ional marine park in the West I s l e s a re a o f the Bay of Fundy.The West I s l e s F e a s i b i l it y Study i s being conducted in t h ree phases . Phase I i s an assessment of the t echnica l f eas i -b i l i t y ox es tab l i sh ing a nat ional marine park in th e WestI S le s a r ea , from the perspect ive of Parks Canada and TourismNew Brunswick. I f Minis ters decide to proceed with the s tudy, Phase I I would involve ex t en s iv e p u b l ic consu l t a t ion to provide the loca l pub l ic with the o p p o rtu n it y t o becomed i r e c t l y involved in t h e p r oc e ss to decide whether or not the West I s l e s proposal i s f eas i b l e . The purpose ofPhase I I I would be to a n al ys e t h e r e s u l t s o f the twopreceeding phases , and to prepare a f ina l repor t based onthe f ind ings , with recommendations for a fu tu re course ofa c t ion . In the process o f completing Phase I , nine ind iv idua l s tud i e s were conducted to i nve s t i ga t e spec i f i c a sp e ct s o fthe f e a s ib i l i t y assessment , a l l of which are summarized in t he Phase I r epor t . These nine s tudies i nc lu d e t h efol lowing:

1. Recommended Resource Management Guide l ines 2. Ins t i t u t iona l and Adminis t ra t ive Arrangements3. O ptio na l V i s i t o r Use Concepts 4. Transpor ta t ion Analysis 5. Tourism Development Plan6. Socio-Economic Impact S tudy 7. Histor ica l /Archaeologica l Concerns and Oppo r tun i ti e s 8. Land Ownership Inventory 9. Analysis and Summary o f P u b li c Comments

Copies o f the above repor t s are ava i lab le upon reques t fromthe following addresses : Department of Tourism, Parks Canada Recrea t ion and Heri tage* 10 Well ington St ree t P.O. Box 12345 Hull , QuebecFreder i c ton , New Brunswick K1A 1G1E3B 5C3 Phone: (819) 994-2696 Phone: (506) 453-2624* Throughout t h i s repor t the former titl Tourism New Brunswick has been used. The cor rec t titl i s now the Department of Tourism, Recrea t ion and Her i tage .


4/60

T BLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword iBackground 1Summary of Publ ic Comments . 2Analys is of Publ ic Comments . 5

APPENDICES

A. Newspaper Advertisement in S t Croix CourierB. Let t e r to Deer Is land Res identsC. Fact SheetsD. Draft Park Purpose and Objec t ives StatementE Comments Recorded a t Open HousesF Briefs presented a t Open Houses and/or Publ ic Meeting


5/60

ANALYSIS ND SUMM RY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

BackgroundThe Pi lo t Study to develop a concept fo r a na t iona l marine park recommendedt ha t a fur ther s tudy be ca r r i ed out in the West I s l e s area of New Brunswickto determine t he f e a s i b i l i t y of es tabl i sh ing a park there . The j o in tf e a s i b i l i t y s tudy (Parks Canada and Tourism New Brunswick) was announcedby t he r espons ib le Federal and Provincia l Ministers in October 1983I t was in tended t ha t the s tudy would be conducted in two phases thef i r s t would determine i f t would be t echnica l ly f eas ib le and t he second, should the f i r s t be pos i t i ve would ob ta in pUblic input i n to the dec is ion -making process on poss ib le opt ions for resource p r o t e c t i o n v i s i to ruse and management s t ruc tu re s . Following ana lys i s of the pub l i c comments,t would be determined i f establ i shment of the park would be f eas i b l eor not and recommendat ions would be made accordingly .

The f ac tor s t ha t caused t he pUblic pa r t i c ipa t ion s tage of t he s tudyto be moved forward before t was determined i f es tabl i sh ing the park was t echnica l ly feas ib le and the opt ions were ready fo r d i scuss ion were:

1. t he p i l o t s tudy was misunderstood by people in the s tudy 2. the purpose of the f e a s i b i l i t y s tudy and i t s phases were misunderstood

by them and r umo ur s b eg an to c i r cu l a t e in loca l o m m u n i t i e s ~ 3. the meetings of t he teams on both s tud ies with rep resen ta t ives of

organ iza t ions on Deer I s land and the Fundy Weir Fishermen's Assoc ia t ionto c la r i f y the r e l a t i ons h i p of the Pi lo t Study and the Feas ib i l i t yStudy and to ge t help in designing t he pub l i c pa r t i c ipa t ion process led to fur ther misunders tanding and rumour in the communit ies .

Consequently, in June of 1984 open houses were held a t Fairhaven on Deer I s land Wilson 's Beach on Campobello I s land and a t S t . Georgeand St . Andrews. A pub l i c meet ing was held a t Lamber tv i l le on D ee rIs land. Sl i gh t l y over one hundred (100) people at tended the two openhouses on Deer I s l and and approximately one hundred and seven ty - f ive


6/60

-2

175) a t the pUblic meeting. There were about t h i r t y 30) people a tCampobello and St . George and f i f t een 15) a t St . Andrews. The counti s not exact as a l l pa r t i c ipan t s did not s ign the mail ing list.

The ob jec t ives of the open houses were to t a lk with the loca l peopleabout the purpose of the f eas ib i l i t y s tudy and the way it was se t up ;to ge t or cor rec t information on the marine resources in the s tudy area ;and to ident i fy benef i t s or problems the loca l people wanted cons idereddur ing the s tudy. Discussion was focused on dra f t park purpose andob jec t ives s ta tements and the process of park s e l ec t i on and es tab l i shmentand management. Par t i c i pan t s were assured t ha t t h e i r suggest ions andconcerns would be cons idered dur ing the formulat ion of opt ions for manage-ment and use, the assessment of f eas ib i l i t y and the subsequent prepara t ionof the Phase I recommendations.

Summary of Publ ic Comments

The major i ssues and concerns have been categor ized under the fol lowingheadings:

A Park PurposeB Park Object ives

1. Resource Protect ion/Conservat ion2. Public Understanding, Appreciat ion and Enjoyment3. Regional In tegra t ion

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ There was consensus among the loca l people tha t the West I s l e s areahad many spec ia l values tha t warranted conservat ion . Some f e l t the rewere i n su f f i c i en t con t ro l s a t present to protec t the West I s l e s environmentand tha t a na t iona l marine park could provide them. Others ques t ionnedwhether a na t iona l marine park was the most appropr ia te way to achieve


7/60

-3

conserva t ion o b j e c t i v e s and whether Parks Canada would be ab le to managethese r esources in a way t h a t would permi t t he con t inued v i a b i l i t y ofthe commercial f i she ry and the maintenance of t h e i r l i f e s t y l e s . Whilet was recognized t ha t the management of a na t iona l marine park would

r equ i r e coopera t ion among se v e r a l government agencies and t he loca lp u b l i c the re was an expressed lack of conf idence i n the government sa b i l i t y to work coopera t ive ly or to cons ider pUblic opinion in i t s dec i s ionmaking process . The pUblic were pa r t i cu l a r ly concerned about what ro lethey would p lay i n the park p lann ing and management proces s .

1 . Resource Pro tec t ion /Conserva t ion

any members of t he pub l ic were concerned about the long t e rm prospec t sfo r r esource conserva t ion in the West I s l e s in view of cur r en to r proposed commercial developments in t he a r ea . Some b e l i e v e dt ha t t he es tab l i shment of a na t iona l marine park could a s s i s t inmi t iga t ing the nega t ive e f f ec t s of such development .

The major concerns expressed were the po t en t i a l impact of a na t iona lmarine park on the commercial f i s h e r y and t he management p r a c t i c e swhich would be put i n p l ace to manage t he f i she ry and park v i s i t o ruse. Spec i f i c i s sues r e f e r r e d to t he s i ze of t he proposed pa r kt he con t inua t ion of e x i s t i n g o r p o ss i b l e fu tu re commercial f i sh ingpr ac t i ces t r a d i t i o n a l domest ic r esource harves t ing hun t ing andpo t en t i a l con f l i c t s between r esource p r o t e c t i o n commercial f i sh ingand park v i s i t o r a c t i v i t y . The po t en t i a l e f f ec t of inc reased boa tt r a f f i c and no ise on f i s h movement was an i s sue of pa r t i cu l a r importance .Some a l s o expressed t he concern t h a t e x i s t i n g problems of d i s tu rbanceto f i sh ing gear and poaching would i nc rease should a park be es tab l i shed .

any f i shermen s t r e s s ed the po in t t ha t t h e i r involvement in thepark management dec is ion-making process would be necessary i f so lu t ionswere to be found to t hese problems. Some f e l t t ha t such par t i c i pa t i on


8/60

-4

in park management would help loca l commercial f ishermen in pro tec t ingt h e i r f i sh ing in te r e s t s . Before a f i na l dec i s ion on a na t iona lmarine park in the West I s l e s , they sought guaran tees t ha t the commercialf i she ry would cont inue, t ha t the commercial f i shermen would be par tof the decis ion-making process r e l a t i v e to park planning and managementand t ha t they would not have to contend with new and add i t iona lregu la t ions on t he commercial f i she ry imposed because of parkestabl i shment .

2. Publ ic Unders tanding Appreciat ion and Enjoyment

People re s id ing in the area adjacent to the proposed park were concernedabout the number of pa rk v i s i t o r s t ha t may be a t t r ac t ed , and thepo t en t i a l impact of t h i s v i s i t a t i o n on t h e i r l i f e s t y l e . Over andabove t he po t en t i a l impact on the commercial f i she ry , they a lsoenvis ioned o ther po t en t i a l problems such as increased t r a f f i c conges t ion ,pa r t i cu l a r ly on t he Deer I s l and f e r ry and i t s access roads , andincreased inc idences of vandal ism rowdyism l i t t e r i n g and cr ime.I t was a lso recognized however t ha t many of t hese problems ex i s twith cur ren t l eve l s of tour ism and t ha t a na t iona l marine park woulda s s i s t in the i r con t ro l . They wondered about the impact on theloca l i n f r a s t r uc t u r e and se rv ices such as water , sewage hea l th ,po l ice and f i r e p r o t e c t i o n .

ome a lso noted t ha t t he West I s l e s i s a s ens i t i ve environment andwere concerned about the po t en t i a l impact of increased v i s i t a t i o non the a r e a s na tu ra l r esources . Summer weather cond i t ions , withf requen t fog were viewed as a se r ious cons t r a i n t t o v i s i t o r enjoymentas were the po ten t i a l l y dangerous cond i t ions in t he cold and tu rbu len twaters of t he West I s l e s .

Concern was expressed t ha t the regu la t ions af fec t ing park v is i to r swould a l so apply to loca l r e s iden ts and thereby l i m i t t h e i r t r ad i t i ona la c t i v i t i e s .


9/60

-5

3. Regional I n t e g r a t i onSeveral concerns were r a i s ed over the p o t e n t i a l impact of the proposedna t iona l marine park on and i t s r e l a t i onsh i p with , the surroundingreg ion . t was sugges ted t ha t land specula t ion would occur , withthe subsequent i nc rease in land pr i c e s and taxes . There was concernt ha t lands would be expropr i a t ed f o r park purposes , and t ha t newland use c on t r o l s and zoning would be put in place to cont ro l l oca lland use pa t t e rn s .

t was recognized t ha t the proposed na t iona l marine park could ass i .s tin expanding the d ive r s i t y of the l oca l economy by provid ing oppor tuni t i e sfor the pr i va t e sec t o r to become involved in the tour ism indus t ry ,or by provid ing d i r ec t and i nd i r ec t employment for loca l r e s i den t s .While t h i s prospect was seen by some to have meri t , o the rs cons ide redthe potent i .a l ly negat ive soc i a l e f f ec t s to outweigh the p o t e n t i a leconomic bene f i t s . They f e l t t ha t i f park were es t ab l i shed , oppor tuni t i ewould have to be provided to enable l oca l people to pa r t i c ipa t ein the decis ion-making process r e l a t iv e to park planning and managementon r egula r bas i s .

Analys is of Pub l ic Comments

All comments recorded on the f l i p cha r t s and br i e f s presented a t theOpen Houses o r Pub l ic Meeting have been analysed . The i ssues t ha t havebeen i den t i f i ed can be summarized as fo l lows:

General : l ack of t r u s t in any l eve l of government c r e d i b i l i t y gap between governments and res iden t s in or near s tudy a rea value of loca l pUblic input government p r i o r i t i e s congruence of value systems of loca l people and governments .


10/60

-6

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : need fo r p ro tec t ion /conse rva t ion of marine resources uncer ta in ty as to co n cep t o f na t iona l marine park and lack of

opt ions to examine f ear t ha t es tab l i sh ing o f p a rk would di srupt f i shery industry and t r ad i t iona l way of l i f e . management s t ruc tu re and s t y l e for cooperat ion between government departments and with " loca l" people - type of management, cont ro l ,

regu la t ions expropr ia t ion .

The ind iv idua l i s sues l i s t e d below are to be addressed dur ing the prepara t ionof opt ions for management and use. Phase I of t he s tudy wil l not haveanswers to the issues r e l a t ed to t ru s t , c r e d i b i l i t y , va lue systems andgovernment p r i o r i t i e s .

A. A n a ly si s o f P u b li c Comments on Park Purpose

1. Good chance to protec t resources .2. Type of management, cont ro l , regu la t ion , impor tant . 3. Fear of government s ty l e in deal ing with resource protec t ion .4. Doubt t ha t Parks Canada i s best vehic le to conserve natura l marine resources .5. Abi l i ty o f P ar ks Canada to pr o t ec t t he natura l resources in a way

t ha t i s accep tab le to the loca l people . 6. Capabi l i ty of Parks Canada to protec t t he f i shery and t he environment. 7. Conf l ic t between use fo r f i shery industry and tour ism indus t ry .8. Cooperat ive management (Parks Canada and l oca l people) ( loca l people

involved in decision-making process re management). 9. Fear t ha t " local" publ ic opin ion won ' t count.

10. Governm en t' s l a ck o f recogni t ion of " loca l ' s " r o l e in resource protec t ion .11. Congruence of value sy stems o f " local" people and governments . 12. Abi l i ty of government departmentsto work together to achieve purpose

of park .13. Contr ibut ion to economy.14. Misunderstanding of purpose and content of Pi lo t Study. 15. Lack of opt ions to examine.16. Outr ight opposi t ion to park establ i shment under any ci rcumstances . 17. Lack of t ru s t in government in genera l .18. Cred ib i l i t y gap.


11/60

-7

B. ~ n l y s s of Publ i c Comments on Park Objec t ives

I . Long t e rm env i ronmenta l p r o t e c t i o n (park o r no park ) .2. Concurren t p e r i p h e r a l development, e . g . Campobel lo .3 . Size of s tudy area /pa rk a r e a o r a r e a s .4 . Manageable s i ze .5. Def ine the r esource management p r a c t i c e s t h a t w i l l be compat ible

wi th t h e f i s h e r y .6. Doubt t h a t t h e f i sh e r y can be pro tec ted and conserved with in a park

wi thou t i n c r e a s i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s ( r e g u l a t i o n s and number of governmentdepar tments enforc ing them) .

7. Impact o f Parks Canada ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n on( inc lud ing shor e based f a c i l i t i e s ) .

8. Flex ib le ( t ime) and compat ible r esource9. Tr a d i t i o n a l h a r v e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s .

10. Hunting pr imar i ly se a b i r d s .I I . Reloca t ion of weir s .

p e o p l e ' s f i sh i n g opera t ions

management .

12. Resource p r o t e c t i o n / f i s h e r y / v i s i t o r a c t i v i t y c o n f l i c t .13. Locat ion of v i s i t o r a c t i v i t y re wei r l oca t ions ( foca l po in t on mainland) .14. Noise boat t r a f f i c d i s r u p t i o n o f f i she ry .15. Vis i to r s / f i she rmen c o n f l i c t s a t wharves.16. Control of v i s i t o r a c t i v i t y to pr even t p o l lu t i o n and litter17. Fear t h a t e x i s t i n g problem of d i s t u r b a n c e and poaching w i l l worsen.18. Wharf pontoonage .19. Meri t s of economic d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n .20. Supplement ing of f i shermen ' s income th rough t our i sm seasona l a c t i v i t i e s .2l . A b i l i t y t o o p e r a t e Park and commercial f i s h e r y wi thou t l o ss of jobs

o r income i n the f i she ry .22. Assurance t h a t people wi l l not l o se p r e s e n t jobs o r have a dec r ea se

in income.23. Dis r up t ion c o s t to community would outweigh t b e n e f i t s .24. F r a g i l i t y of n a tu r a l r esources on Deer I s l and and v i s i t o r a c t i v i t y

demands w i l l p l a c e a d d i t i o n a l demands on p r iv a t e l ands .25. Impact of park on l o c a l se rv ices .


12/60

-8

26. Vio la t ion of pr i va t e proper ty r i gh t s by tou r i s t s .27. Local access to and u s e o f park lands.28. Appl icat ion of v i s i t o r s a c t i v i t y cont ro l s to loca l people . 29. Ad jacent l an d cont ro l s .3 0. A d eq ua te personnel to manage a rea .31. Regulat ions per t inent to a rea .32. Abi l i ty to gain respect and enforce r egula t ions .33. Track record of governments in responding to f e l t needs of communit ies

(value of loca l input ) .34. In terna t ional exper ience .

2. P _ ~ t I _ ~ c__ ~ ~ < : r _ ~ ~ a _ ~ ~ i _ ~ g _ __ p R ~ < : c _ i _ c : ~ i _ o ? _ c : n _ ~ ~ ~ t o x ~ < : ~ t

35. C once rn for long term implica t ions of Nat iona l Marine Park- u l t ima tenumber of v i s i to r s .

36. Local concern for l i f es ty l es and natura l resources; sens i t i ve toany change.

37. Conf l ic t between use fo r f i shery industry and tour ism indus t ry .38. Capabi l i ty of Parks Canada to pr o t ec t the f i shery and the environment

doubted. 39. ummer weather condi t ions perceived as a cons t r a i n t : v i s i to r exper ience ,

v i s i to r safe ty .4 0. C on ce rn for lack of community i n f r a s t ruc tu re to handle exi s t ing

v i s i t a t i o n .4 1. Im pa ct of park on loca l serv ices .42. Control of v is i to r s a c t i v i t i e s to prevent pol lu t ion and l i t t e r .43. The app l ica t ion of regu la t ions to loca l s as wel l as v i s i to r s .44. Appl icat ion of v i s i t o r s a c t i v i t y con t ro l s to loca l people . 45. Viola t ion of pr i va t e proper ty r i gh t s by t o u r i s t s .46. Iden t i f i ca t ion of mooring areas and access to water .47. Disrupt ion cos t to community would outweigh bene f i t s .48. Meri ts of economic d ive r s i f i ca t ion .49. Abi l i ty of Campobello Is land to accommodate f u r t he r "urban" development. 50. Concurrent per iphera l development , e .g . Campobello51. Abi l i ty to gain re spec t and enforce r egula t ions .52. Abi l i ty of government departments to work together to achieve purpose

of park .


13/60

-9

53. Misunderstanding of purpose and con ten t of P i l o t Study.54. Size of s tudy area /pa rk area o r a r e a s .55. Impact on fu tu re genera t ion .56. Fear t ha t con t rover sy wi l l con t inue .57. Community d is rup t ion .58. Municipal i ncorpora t ion , community p lann ing , zoning, he igh t r e s t r i c t i o n s

on bu i ld ings .59. Expropr ia t ion .60. Impor tance of pass ing on proper ty to ch i ld ren .61. Adjacent l and c o n t r o l s .62. Loca l access to and use of park l ands .63. Foreign ownership.64. Tourism.65. Concern fo r long term impl i ca t ions of National Marine Park- u l t ima te

number of v i s i t o r s .66. Vio la t ion of p r iv a t e proper ty r i gh t s by t o u r i s t s .67. Summer weather cond i t ions perce ived as cons t ra in t : v i s i t o r exper ience,

v i s i t o r s a f e t y .68. Impact of park on loca l se rv ices .69. Abl i ty of Campobello I s l and to accommodate70. Soc ia l b e n e f i t s of park .71. Socio-economic impact of br idge .72. Adequacy of t he f e r ry se rv ice .73. Road improvements.74. Publ ic s e c u r i t y ( increased p o l i c in g ) .75. Smuggling acros s border .76. Increased cr ime.

f u r th e r "urban" development

77. Long term envi ronmenta l pro tec t ion (park or no park ) .78. Good oppor tun i ty t o p r o t e c t r esources .79. Loca l concern fo r l i f e s t y l e s and na tu ra l r esources ; s ens i t i ve to

any change.80. Resource pro tec t ion / f i she ry /v i s i t o r ac t iv i ty con f l i c t .81. Impact o f Parks Canada ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n on p e o p l e s f i sh ing opera t ions

( inc lud ing shore based f a c i l i t i e s ) .


14/60

-

8 2. N oi se boat t r a f f i c dis rupt ion of f i shery83. Relocat ion of weirs84. Abi l i ty o f P a rk s Canada to pr o t ec t the natura l resources in a way

t ha t i s acceptable to the local people in quest ion85. The appl i ca t ion of regual t ions to loca l s as wel l as v i s i t o r s86. Hunting pr imar i ly seabi rds87. Contr ibut ion to economy.88. Meri ts of economic d ive r s i f i ca t ion89. Increase in land t axes90. Increased cos t of l i v ing91. Land specu la t ion

c. Process

1 . Method governments wil l use to assess pUblic opinions2. Iden t i f i ca t ion of publ ic who makes up pUblic?3. Importance given to publ ic i n pu t ( w e ig h t) .4. In vo lve me nt and ro le of e lec ted r epresenta t ives5. Adequate and appropr ia te information d is t r ibu t ion6. Locat ion of open houses and publ ic meetings. 7. Cla r i f i ca t ion of decision-making process:

involvement of pUblic in f eas ib i l i t y s tudy; involvement of pUblic in planning for na t ional marine park; involvement of pUblic in management of nat ional marine park .


15/60

PPENDIX A

. J P c - l i > , ' - ; ~ ~ i o I i I I ' - - - - - - - - - . Parks Pares. ".... .Canada CanadaNew B r u n ~ w i c k Department of TourismMinistere du Tourisme du Nouveau- BrunswickInvite you oAn Open House and Public Meeting

To discuss your Ideas for the joint study to help findout If It Is feasible to have a national marine park In theWest Isles area.

OPEN HOUSE DEER ISLANDDeer Island Development Association Hall, FairhavenThursday, June 14 - between 10 a.m. and 9 p.m.orFriday, June 15 - between 10 a.m. & 5 p.m.PUBLIC MEETING DEER ISLAND

Mayfair Hall, LambertvilleFriday, June 15 - 7:00 p.m.OPEN HOUSE ST. GEORGEDepartment of Natural Resources BuildingSaturday, June 16 between 1 a.m. & 9 p.m.

OPEN HOUSE CAMPOBELLOSt. Anne's Church Hall, WelshpoolMonday, June 18 between 1 a.m. & 9 p.m.

OPEN HOUSE ST. ANDREWSNew Brunswick Community College - Room 203Tuesday, June 19 - between 1 a.m. & 9 p.m.


16/60

PPENDIX B

National Marine Park Feasibility Study - West IslesJune, 1984

Dear Residents of Deer Island:As you know, Parks Canada and Tourism New Brunswick have started a studyto determine the feas"ibi1ity of establishing a national marine park in theWest Isles area. We would like you to come to the "Open House" at theDeer Island Development Association Hall in Fairhaven to talk to us aboutthis study. Drop in for a few minutes or several hours.The "Open House" will be held on:Thursday 14 June 1984 between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.Friday, 15 June 1984 between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.We would like to talk with you about the purpose of the study, and the waythe stuqy is set up. We will have maps of the area that is being studiedon which will be shown information on the marine resources. We would likearea residents to check the maps with us and correct misinformation ifthere is any. We want to discuss with you the benefits and problems of anational marine park within the stuqy area. Your suggestions and concernswill be written down.At 7:00 p.m. on Friday, 15 June 1984 there will be a public meeting in theMayfair Hall, Lambertville. The chairperson will be a local resident.The suggested agenda will be:- presentation by Parks Canada and Tourism New Brunswick representativeson the purpose of and ideas about ~ t i o n marine parks and a report onthe open houses;- presentation by spokespersons of interested groups expressing theirinterests and concerns to help the stuqy team to carry out their work;- questions from the floor.


17/60

The kinds of things we learn from you will be taken into considerationwhen preparing the draft report of the stuqy. No decision has been takenas to ~ h e t h e r or not a national marine park will be established within theWest Isles stuqy area. After these discussions in June, and otherinformation is gathered, we will carry out an evaluation. In the fall wewill discuss the results of this evaluation with you and departments offederal and provincial governments. The recommendations made in the finalstuqy report will be based upon these discussions. It will be a long timebefore decisions can be taken by the two governments. The present OpenHouses and pUblic meeting are only the first of many before finaldecision is made.We look forward to talking with you on the 14th and 15th.

Yours s i n e r ~ l y

c ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ c A \ _ ~ ~Bill Henwood Mary M. Gi 111sParks Canada Parks Canada T o u r i ~ e ~ Brunswick10 Wellington St. Atlantic Region p o ~ i 123452nd Floor Historic Properties Fredericton, N.B.Hull, Quebec Upper Water Street E3B 5C3K1A lG2 Hal ifax, N.S. (506) 453-2624819-994-3011 B3J lS9

902-426-7233


18/60

PPENDIX CF CT SHEET 1

General Information on National Marine Parks

1. There are no national marine parks in Canada although there areprovincial marine parks and marine parks in other parts of the world.

2. There is a draft National Marine Parks Policy for Canada. t has beendiscussed with interested individuals and organizations across thecountry. All comments have been put together and are being studied.The draft has not been revised yet. t may be some time before therevised document receives final approval.

People from Deer Island including representatives of the Fundy WeirFishermen's Association attended workshops on the draft policy.(Copies of the draft policy will be available at the Open Houses andPublic Meeting).

3. The primary objective in establishing a national marine park is "toprotect and conserve for a l l time representative marine areas ofCanadian significance in a system of marine parks) so to leave themunimpaired for future generations and to encourage publicunderstanding) appreciation and enjoyment of Canada's marineheri tage."

4. s currently proposed a national marine park would include submergedlands and overlying water mass together with some coastal lands andislands) which would be owned by Canada and protected and conservedunder the National Parks Act (1974).

The administration) management) and control of resources in nationalmarine parks would be under the direction of the Minister responsiblefor the National Parks Act) with the exception of commercial f isheries)navigation) and shipping which would remain with the federalministers presently responsible for their regulation according toagreements entered into a t the time the national marine park isestablished.


19/60

-2

5. The public will be given opportunities to part icipate in theestablishment of national marine parks and in discussions leading tothe agreements for establishment and management

6. People who l ive in the area of a national marine park and commercialfishermen who f ish in the area will have a continuing opportunity to beinvolved in the decision-making process on development and managementof the park.

Prepared by:Parks Canada and Tourism ew BrunswickJune 1984


20/60

F CT SHEET 112

Selecting a National Marine Park

1. For the purpose of having a systematic basis for identifying potentialnational (land) and national marine parks, Parks Canada divided thecountry into natural regions.

2. Within the marine natural regions studies are carried out to findmarine natural areas of Canadian significance. These areas must showthe diversity of oceanographic, biological, geological, historical , andcultural themes of a marine region.

These marine natural areas of Canadian significance do not take in l lof the region, but parts of i t that can be said to represent theregion.

3. The Bay of Fundy is considered to be a marine region.

4. Studies have been conducted in the Bay of Fundy by or for Parks Canadaover a number of years to identify marine natural areas of Canadiansignificance. Four were identified - around Deer Island, Grand Mananin New Brunswick and Brier Island and Evangeline Beach in NovaScotia.

5. The four marine areas of Canadian significance were compared and theDeer Is land area West Isles area) was found to have the greatest potential for a national marine park.

6. A study area means the area that is studied and does not show the boundary of a national marine park.

Prepared by:Parks Canada and Tourism New BrunswickJune 1984


21/60

FACT SHEET 3

Background to Present Study

1. During 1975-76, Tourism New Brunswick conducted a study to identifytourism opportunities in the Bay of Fundy area of New Brunswick. Thestudy was known as the Fundy Isles Tourism Study. Numerous publicmeetings and workshops were held. The idea of a marine park in thegeneral area was recommended at the time.

2. Using the West Isles as a setting a Pilot Study was conducted between1978 and 1982 by Tourism New Brunswick and Parks Canada to develop aconcept of what a national marine park might look like. This idea of anational marine park was taken into consideration when preparing thedraft policy.

3. The Pilot Study Summary was released by the federal Minister of theEnvironment and the provinciaL Minister of Tourism in November 1983.A press release was issued announcing that the Pilot Study wascompleted and available to anyone who was interested by writing to therespective departments of government. (Copies were distr ibuted tovarious organizations on Deer Island such as Local Service Distr ict ,Chamber of Commerce, Fundy Weir Fishermen's Association.)

4. At the same time the Ministers announced that Parks Canada and TourismNew Brunswick would conduct a joint study to determine the feasibi l i tyof establishing a national marine park in the West Isles area of NewBrunswick. (Copies of the Terms of Reference Summary for this studywere distributed to various organizations on Deer Island.)

5. The interested public will have appropriate o p p o r t u t ~ s toparticipate in the feasibi l i ty study.



22/60

F CT SHEET #4

Feasibil i ty Study

1. The purpose of the joint study being conducted by Parks Canada andTourism New Brunswick is to determine the feas ib i l i ty of establishing anational marine park in the West Isles area of New Brunswick.

2. The study i t se l f wil l NOT establish a national marine park. I t will recommend that such a park should or should not be established.

3. If the study recommends that a national marine park should beestablished in the area, i t will also present proposals for managementof the commercial fishery and act iv i t ies of vis i tors

4. Interested individuals and organizations will have opportunities todiscuss al l aspects of the study and give thei r ideas and suggestionsto the s tudy team.

5. The study team will meet with the public a t different steps in thestudy to discuss the tasks.

6. These are the tasks in the Study:- review study area (copy attached);- se t up object ives for a potent ial national marine park and discuss

them with the public and other government departments;- gather information on:

t ransportat ion tourism development land tenure;

- do an archaelogical inventory; - prepare visi tor use options and discuss with the public; - outline what needs to be considered in agreements for the management

of the commercial fishery and visi tor act iv i t ies and discuss withthe public and other government departments;

- conduct a socio-economic impact study.


23/60

-2

7. At this time the Study Team wants to get the public's opinions on:

- objectives for a national marine park; - what i t could look l ike; - what could take place in i t ;

how i t could be managed;- what regulations would be necessary.

8. Although the announcement was made some time ago the work on the Tasksfor the feasibili ty study has not yet been completed.

9. The feasib1ity study will l ikely take another year to complete.

10. The cri ter ia against which a recommendation will be made to whether i tis feasible to establish a national marine park in the West Isles areahave not been finalized. Draft cr i ter ia will be discussed with theinterested public and other government departments before they arefinalized.

11. Remember the feasibili ty study will OT establish a national marinepark. I t will only recommend to the respective Ministers if i t is oris not feasible.

Prepared byParks Canada and Tourism ew BrunswickJune 1984


24/60

F CT SHEET #5

Land Requirements

1. No one knows at this time exactly how much land base would be necessaryfor a national marine park in the West Is les area i one is establishedthere.

2. In any event, Parks Canada will not ask that any land be expropriated.Whatever land is needed, i t will be on a will ing se l ler-wi l l ing buyerbasis .

Prepared by:Tourism New BrunswickJune 1984


25/60

FACT SHEET 6

Commercial Fishery

1. Parks Canada is very conscious of the importance of the commercialfishery in the West Isles area.

2. The basis on which the Province of New Brunswick i s part icipat ing inthe feas ib i l i ty study is that the commercial fishery is not disrupted.

3. In i t ia l discussions have been held with representatives of commercialfishermen and also with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Thesediscusssions will continue. I t is hoped that a concensus will bereached among these parties on the management of the commercialfishery.

4. Until la ter on in this study, specify answers will not be available.The team expects to be in a better position to address specific issuesin the fa l l



26/60

WEST ISLES STUDY RE TH S S NOT A PARK BOUNDARY

P SS M QUODDYS Y

C MPOIIELLO


27/60

APPENDIX D

DR FT ST TEMENT OF PURPOSE ND OBJECTIVES

P RK PURPOSE:To protec t and conserve marine resources and f ea tures t ha t are h igh lyrepresenta t ive o f the Bay o f Fundy Natural Marine Region, and to encouragepUbl ic apprecia t ion and enjoyment o f the proposed park by present andfu ture generat ions .

This purpose is to be achieved in harmony with communit ies in the reg ion .

P RK OBJECTIVES:1.

to protec t and conserve the highly d iverse marine lif in t he WestI s l e s and f ea tures such as very high t i de s f a s t cu r ren t s ex tens ivever t i ca l mix ing o f waters , a whir lpool reputed to be t he second larges tin the world, a v ar i e t y o f coas ta l f ea tures and an i n t e re s t i ng andp leas ing seascape;to pr o t e c t and conserve human her i tage resources and preh i s t o r i cand h i s t o r i c s i t e s and f ea tures represen t ing ear ly t rading f i sh inglogging , navigat ion and sh ipbu i ld ing ac t i v i t i e s .

2

to i n t e rpre t t he na tura l and human h i s t o ry themes o f the West I s l e sarea in such a way t ha t the v i s i t o r w i l l obta in an apprecia t ion andunderstanding o f t he d ive r s i t y o f marine resources and man s r e l a t i ons h i pwith the sea.

to ensure tha t t he prov i s ion o f f a c i l i t i e s and serv ices in t he proposednat ional marine park provides pos i t i v e economic and soc ia l bene f i t sto t he surrounding areai


28/60

2 -

- to encourage local communities and the provincial government to maintainsocial and economic act iv i t i es the charm o f the vi l lages and the heritageimportance o f man made s t ruc tu re s associated with the commercial f i sherysuch s lobster pounds wharves weirs and l ighthouses;to provide opportunit ies for the public to become involved in the planningand development o f the proposed national marine park.

Prepared for Open Houses - June 1984Parks Canada nd Tourism ew Brunswick


29/60

APPENDIX E

OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS

Deer Is landune 14-15 1984

A problem with marine park lands on the mainland o r Deer Is land i s the pub l i cd i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between pr i va t e and park land; i.e. for walking, clamming,e t c .

concern f or the marine park has caused d i f f i c u l t i e s for people who pre ferto have an open mind and to explore t he p o s s i b i l i t i e s

problem with t our i s t s near Mascarene f i sh ing near the weirs and droppingmackerel l u re s

in the Channel area, weirs are f ished around 2:00 p.m. f ear lack o fprotec t ion from boat t ra f f i c a t midday

s hu t -o f f s airp lane f i s h spo t t e r s say herr ing come to shore long beforedark j u s t c an ' t see them to edge o f dark

I catch f i sh in s hu t -o f f s an average o f 10 n igh t s a year 2 night scould represent 2/3 o f year ' s income

can ' t s tand someone to bother m or scare f i sh away those n i gh t s

White Is land eagle nes t ovms weir on southwest shore people / tourboats wi l l want to see t he nes t wi l l bother our l le ir

I employ 3 4 people , some for share, some for 100 a day where i sthe unemployment because I would h i re more but can ' t f ind them in thesummer t ime?


30/60

scuba divers wi l l run th ings around weirs , scare herr ing are downon us ( f i shermen) s t ea l lobs ters and sca l lops u t weir n e t t in g divers always have r igh t o f way

i a marine park i s approved, it would apparent ly have a negat ive a f f ec ton the f i sh ing bus iness , a lso other bus inesses on the i s land , such ss tores , e tc .

- I would sugges t in t h i s case tha t i f ishermen or others are af fec ted ,they should be given a l i cence to take t our i s t s out on boat t r i p s

- many o f the t our i s t s now j u s t use Deer I s land s shor t cut ( they geton and o f f the two f e r r i es to get themse lves to another des t ina t ion )

the one ques t ion the t o u r i s t asked on the ferry was "what i s the shor te s troute to the o ther ferry?

- I m very concerned tha t the commercial f i she ry cont inues undis turbed

- the fears nd the doubts are so l id ly based

n i n t erp re t i ve (demonstrat ion) weir could provide addi t ional incometo weir f ishermen

I fear t ha t i a nat ional marine park i s es tab l i shed in t h i s area Iwi l l lose the th ings I value

- not everyone has the same value system

- i the government wants something (e .g . , Beans I s land) they wi l l takeit


31/60

we love the land tha t has been n our fami ly for generat ions

- some f i shermen get t h e i r weir mater ia l on some o f the i s lands

- there are advantages and disadvantages

- I m not for o r agains t a nat ional marine park in t h i s area

- there is a way o f lif here people come here to enjoy the peace andquie t if too many people come the very reason Deer Is land i s s a t t r a c t i v ecould b e des t royed

on Deer I s land ( in the area where commercial f i shery is tak ing place)we are having problems with t o u r i s t s now they d i s tu rb and sometimestake lobs ter s . ut o f the t raps

- in the Channel our bes t t ime i s 2 p.m. , how can you going pro tec t myweir

- I do not agree wi th the idea o f a nat ional marine park in t h i s area;I t h ink it would be too r e s t r i c t i v e ; I th ink ever y t h i ng would be toogoverned a l o t o f regula t ions

- v i s i t o r s and f i she ry indus try do not go t oge t her

- although we want to pro tec t and conserve our f i she ry , we do not fee lthe government r e s t r i c t i o n s can do t h i s , i 1 other words the r e s t r i c t i o n scould outweigh the b e n e f i t s

- we would not want any o f ur lands owned by Canada because we wouldlose our f i sh ing r igh t s


32/60

- we can only ta lk on our exper ience

once the government owns something local protes t has littl re su l t

- government adminis t ra tors have no knowledge o f t he re ( f i she ry ) andt here fore cannot make v iable dec i s ions

to some, tour i s t s would he lp the i r business but t here would be too muchdis rupt ion

- the f e r ry se rv i ce cannot handle the local t ra f f i c now what wi l l it owith more v i s i t o r s

- local produce t ha t is per i sh ib l e must be t ransported immediately cannot wai t in a l i n e up

t present it i s a problem to have large commercial f i shery re s -each geographic re i s d i f f e r e n t and it i s necessary to understandthe n ture o f the f i shery it is not poss i b l e to have one s e t o f regula t ionsapply t he persons who adminis te r and manage have too large t e r r i to r y

Canadian Armed Forces have exerc i se s in area and it is f e l t t ha t whenthey are div ing they take lobs ters and sca l lops

what say w i l l local people have in t he management o f a nat ional marinepark?

- be fore I m f or o r agains t I want to know what t he whole th ing i s about wi l l a nat ional marine park help or hinder t he people in the area

- wi l l it bene f i t t he area soc ia l l y and economical ly


33/60

what wil l it do to the standard o f l iv ing?

what wil l it do for the fu ture generation? wil l they be bet ter of f?

the establ ishment o f a nat ional marine park must not hurt the environment

the f ishery has i t s ups and downs it must be able to continue but theremay be meri t i n d i vers i fy ing

the study area i s such a small area for so much ac t i v i t y

I could see i the e s te rn area were not made a focal area it i s thee s tern area where al l the weirs are and needs protect ion

Deer Is land has a f rag i le environment and I can t see a l o t o f peoplebeing encouraged to come here

the focal point might be on the mainland

the noise factor i s key the f ishery can t ex i s t with the noise

we s fishermen must have a say in what goes in to agreements betweengovernments and then in overseeing the implementation o f the agreements -only in t h i s way wil l w t rus t that a nat ional marine park can be o fbenef i t providing o f course that solutions are found to the problemsident i f ied

I m concerned tha t the proposed development on Campobello wil l causeproblems for our f ishery we wil l not have any control over the newpeople who wil l come to l i ve there and know nothing about the f ishery -I th ink that we would have some control over a nat ional marine parkand it would afford protect ion to the f ishery


34/60

we f ear that land t xes wi l l increase i there is a nat ional marinepark here and the people on f ixed incomes wi l l not be able to af fordto l i v e here

there i s no way that an i s land o f 8 miles long X 4 mi les wide canaccommodate a projec ted i n f l ux o f t o u r i s t s o f 200,000 s proposed bythe Provincia l Minis te r o f Tourism

we are af ra id tha t we wi l l not be able to pass on our proper t i es toour chi ldren (as happens now in the e s tabl i shment o f new nat ional parks -such as in Newfoundland)

we want to be able to cont inue c u t t ing for weir mater ia l o r firel'lOod,e t c . , and hunt ing on our lands

the tour i s t s can cause po l l u t i on ; e .g . throwing bo t t l e s in to the water

I want t he I s land t he way it i s undis turbed (except for b e t t e r f erryserv ice)

there are many t h ings tha t we have asked the government to he lp us withand it has not happened now we are being asked to accept somethingwe don ' t want and i s being forced on us e .g . we have asked f or a newschool the government says there are 15 s t eps the ground has beencleared but ye t no school

we have to l i v e here year round not ju s t i n the summer

any in format ion should be sent to Deer Is land as a household drop, notj u s t to the people who at tended t he Open House

we t h ink tha t tour i s t s w i l l not s tay around in foggy weather, checkm the weather con f i t i ons


35/60

- people around here plan the ir act iv i t i es with a t ide book or a ful lmoon

- we don't want a national marine park because:i t i s not possible to control a large number o touris t s so that theywil l not in ter fere with the commercial f ishery especial ly the weirf ishery also lobs ter f isherythere i s no guarantee that divers wil l not rob the traps

- we do not t r u s t the "Government" example there were lo ts o f meetingsin the Pt. Lepreau area before the plant went in there the local peopledid not think it would benef i t them yet the plant i s there today. Thelocal people had to se l l the ir land for the value s appraised by thegovernment

it i s not jus t what might happen immediately i a national marine parkwas established but what might happen down the road" what might bedone to at tract more touris t s

- I d l i ke to see the park corne UT come with the people in mind

- I would l ike to see park established here

- wil l we be able to continue to harvest kelp, dulse and other seaweedfor food products

- The proposed Marine Park for the West Is les area may prove to be thelas t chance to provide a viable option to a one industry communitywith a declining population.


36/60

OPEN HOUSE COMMENTSSt . George

June 16, 1984

Concerns o f people direc t ly involved in the proposed area o f the park:

study done in Moncton was there one did t ask questions about theproposed park in/around Deer Island?

take a survey in the area that encompasses the park f ind out whatthe people want possibly a referendum

wil l land e expropriated?

with a large i n f lux o f people ( touris t s) what about ferry service,hospital-medical , pol ice , sani tat ion, roads?

qual i ty o f l i f e o f people who l i ve there (to preserve i s to leaveas i s )

who wil l pro f i t in L'Etete from sale o f land i s t mostly pol i t ic ians?

page 7 o f "National Marine Parks Policy" 1.3.7 re expropriation -th is statement i s confusing; t t e l l s us the government can expropriate:w are very concerned about our own land and homes

when you have future meetings, we would l i f e our Federal representativeto attend and local M.L.A. ' s and minis ter

people have no respect for f isheries o f f i cers and would have none forpark wardens and could therefore not control the si tuat ion


37/60

- concerned about the potent ial for a greater drug trade in the generalarea

- s ta te INTENTS clearly

- meetings in the future: Deer Island, Back Bay include not i f icat ionsto a l l L Eteters , reens Point too (RR 4 St. George)

- posters t least a week in advance o f meetings in areas to be af fectedby Proposal

af t e r la te fa l l meeting, i majori ty o f people express a negative o p ~ ~ ohow long would w have to continue to l i ve in uncertainty as to theestablishment o f the Park?

- most people l i ve on the Mascarene because o f the qual i ty o f l i f e Thiswould change unacceptably.

- i s the park not a fa i t accompli?

- major points are:1) no expropriation o f land2) no res tr ic t ion on where w can boat

individual reports wil l be pUblic wil l comments by department seniors ta f f be made pUblic?

w think it i s a good idea to consider a national marine park for t h i sarea there i s no control to preserve the natural l i f e of th i s area

- now some young people shoot the seabirds in the area looking o f f acrossthe Bay t Mascabin Point


38/60

it i s a wonderful oppor tuni ty to protec t a beau t i f u l par t o f Canadafor a l l t enjoy now and for f u ture generat ions

t he v i s i t o r s are coming now and t here are no f a c i l i t i e s nor cont ro l s ,there fore , t he v i s i t o r s are causing problem but a park would providet hese

freedom i s a road t New Brunswick

what w i l l happen when the campobel lo development mater ia l i zes?

even i a park i s not es tab l i shed , there wi l l have t be some form o fcontro l zoning t preserve what i s important now

I have a dinghy; could I go out when ever I want i area i s a park?I l i v e wi th in the s tudy area


39/60

OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS

WelshpoollCampobello IslandJune 18, 1984

wil l fishermen continue to be able to relocate the ir weirs?

will there be more regulations and controls on the fishermen i s itj u s t for the t o u r i s t

there i s very l i t t l e room on Campobello now with two parks

the bridge has brought changes

I would pre fer to see the Island preserved Canadian than sold o f f forprof i t to others

fishermen should have the same r ights they have now

the t ou r i s t s are coming anyway

what kind o f land use controls would be in e f fe t near the park wouldI be able to bui ld a wharf out from y property?

who needs a marine park? Not us

i the park i s establ ished, there must be some form o f shared management

there should be local contribution to the planning stage and then theimplementation


40/60

suggest local committee to work with planners (study team)

should be local committee to look f ter the i n t e res t s o f the local area

would need to do something about the pol lut ion t St . George

le t l i f e goenjoy on- only do the kinds o f things that protect and l e t people

therePark

are more things nd more to Campobello than Roosvelt International

you must keepl l along

the people involved - meet with u share information

Canada i s not bui l t around tourism

when you in ter fere with one group o f people ino f Canada one area t f fec ts l l

I m in favour of a study

maybe a national marine park i s good

perhaps you should think o f several small parks

Parks Canada i s making a mistake looking t such a large area


41/60

, - although f i shing has i t s ups and downs - the good years conpensate forthe bad

should study the Japanese way of handling marine parks

advert ise meetings bet ter

people must work together

control park from local area

at what point do tourism and development have a diminishing e f fec t onpreservation o f habi tat within the park area as well as outside i t

ow wil l the Wade "development" in ter face wi th marine protection?ow can you preserve natural resources a t the same t ime you are increasing

consumption o f resources , increasing water use increasing sewage, e tc . ,etc . ?

New Brunswick Tourism says Campobello cannot suppor t urban development.There i s a dichotomy here.

these men t e l l us public opinion i s val id in the ir report - i so ourworr ies are over - there wil l be no "park"!

th is plan has been under study since 1978 - how come the people o fCampobello are only hearing about i t in 1984?

Campobello doesn t need a Marine Park!


42/60

keep f ishermen in formed o f m t te rs per ta in ing to them re Federal andProvincia l Department

I f our whole way o f I i f e i s to be changed, w don t need it Governmentdoesn t always know what i s bes t for us

a marine park planned nd developed in cooperat ion with t he people o fthe area would enr ich the l i v e s o f a l l both c u l tu r a l l y and f inanc ia l ly -t h i s area needs a shot in t he arm any parks and h i s t o r i c s i t e s o fParks Canada t ha t I have v i s i t e d have been de f i n i t e s se t s to thesurrounding communi t ies


43/60

OPEN HOUSE OMMENTS

St. AndrewsJune 19, 1984

problem t wharves we o not have enough pontoonage t most o f thewharves now i s t h i s being considered?

can t see how the national marine park and a commercial f ishery canex is t together i you have a park you have to have regulat ions andth is can in ter fere with the local people who have l i ved there (in thearea) for years

it i s d i f f i cu l t for us s taxpayers to understand why there i s moneyavailable for a national marine park in any area that i s productiveand free o f pol lut ion now and there i s no funding to clear up placesl i ke L'Etang

i it wasn't for the people and the f isheries , I d say you picked anideal spot for a national marine park

you should address the councils in the general area s that there i san understanding o f the purpose o f the study also the Chambre o f Commerce

a national marine park has the potential o f enhancing the ent ire area

should emphasize protection/conservation aspect o f national marine park


44/60

PPENDIX F

Submission to Parks CanadaNational Marine Park F e as ib i l i t y Study West I s l e s

My name i s Mary Peck, my home i s o Deer I s land and I have worked o bothnat ional and prov inc ia l parks . I be l ieve Deer I s land and the of fshorearea would be an unsu i tab le choice as the pi lo t pro jec t for na t ional marineparks in Canada.

Firs t , Deer I s l and ' s economy depends on one long s tanding and success fu lindus try , which would i ne v i t ab l y be af fec ted by the nature o f such a park.

Second, the s tudy area i s much too smal l to support such a pro jec t . ParksCanada has shown us the Barr ier Reef Marine Park in Austra l ia hugearea compared to t h i s one. parks Canada wants v i s i t o r s to the proposedpark to experience t he lif s t y l e possessed by the people o f Deer Is landbut we have a way o lif tha t cannot be shared by hundreds o f thousands.People come here to enjoy the peace and quie t , which w i l l vanish if apark i s es tab l i shed .

Such a park would presen t many problems for both inhabi tan ts and v i s i t or s .The systems are s imply not good enough and some cannot be improved:

1 . Land purchase i s complex and d i f f i cu l t in t h i s area. The land t i t l e sare confused and Char lo t t e County has the h ighes t ra te o f foreign ownershipin New Brunswick.2. Ef f i c i en t f e r ry s e rv i ce between the mainland, Deer and CompobelloI s lands would be very expens ive and jUdging from presen t condi t ions , imposs ibto es tab l i sh and maintain for such heavy t r a f f i c . High t i de s and stormsadd to the d i f f i c u l t i e s ; char ter boats and scuba div ing , a major a c t i v i t yin park complex" (4 .81) would increase the complex i ty o f t ranspor tto and around the area.3 The water i s too cold for swimming and the f resh water supply i s of tenlow in summer.


45/60

4. Medical serv ice i s bare ly adequate and sewage disposal would presentproblems.5. Is land communit ies are not large enough to se t up and maintain s u f f i c i e n ts to re s and accommodation, some would be ne f i t littl from such es tabl i shments .t i s impossib le to f ind po l i ce o f f i c e r who wants to l i v e on t he i s land;

t h i s would a l so apply to developers o f commercial es tabl i shment .6. The s i z e o f the i s land would dr as t i c a l l y l im i t the parkland avai lab leand the v i s i t o r s would f ind it d i f f i c u l t to respect pr i va t e proper ty .

A s i t e i nvo lv ing larger land area and of f shore w ters would preventmany o f the above problems. According to parks Canada, the park cent rewould be more complex than the t rad i t i ona l v i s i t o r se rv i ce or i n t e rpre ta t i oncent re and it would be " the hub o f a l l ac t i v i t y" . (4 .3 .1) A large areai s cer ta in l y more v iable when t he at tendance f igures a t various na t i ona lparks are examined.

Paci f i c Rim National Park on the i s o l a t e far s i de o f Vancouver I s landi s t he one most s imi lar to t he proposed for our area. Last month in Ottawa,Mr John Carruthers Chief , National Parks System Planning t o ld m t ha tover 500,000 people v i s i t e d pac i f i c Rim National Park la s t year. FundyPark had over 200,000 dur ing the same period . Can you imagine such numberson Deer Is land?

Parks Canada has only draf t po l i cy for marine parks and no experiencein creat ing them. e a l l l earn from our mistakes but who wants to bea guinea pig? Parks Canada should be where the people want park, ifno area wants it then the f ederal government had be t t e r reconsider t he i raims.

Parks Canada s t a t e s t ha t the park ' s purpose i s to be achieved "in harmonywith communit ies in the area". Because t h i s area i s an unsui table s i t e ,cons iderat ion o f such park has brought only controversy to t he area,as has occured in the past in other par t s o f the province . e need only


46/60

to look t the present impasse between government departments concerningweir o Chocolate Cove Deer Island to envisage what would occur onmuch larger scale i th is proposed park c me in to being


47/60

PPENDIX F

FUNDY WEIR FISHERMEN S ASSOCIATION, INC.

WHY W OBJECT TO THE M RINE P RK -

1) The Draft Nat iona l Marine Park Pol icy i s qui te exp l ic i t in saying t ha tce r t a in areas wi l l be zoned and in some of these zones, no commercialf i sh ing wi l l be al lowed, in others , commercial a c t i v i t i e s wi l l ber e s t r i c ted .

2 ) The Park wi l l increase boat t r a f f i c and scuba diver s , both of t hesecan be very harmful to the weir f i shery . The weir f i shery depends uponsard ines juveni l e herr ing) coming ashore a t night . Any dis turbancese i the r noise , l i g h t , e t c . , can a f f ec t t hese sard ine movements, whichin turn can grea t ly a f f ec t the amount of f i sh caught . There a re approxi -mately 65 weirs in the s tudy area and indeed i s the cen t re of the weirf i shery and t he sard ine Industry . The reasons why t h i s area has beenchosen for a Marine Park loca t ion are the same reasons why there i sa v iab le commercial f i shery .

3) Parks Canada's his tory has been to pr o t ec t the eco system not the people .We f ee l t ha t th i s wi l l happen here as wel l and i f a Marine Park ses tabl i shed , they wi l l eventual ly dr ive us ou t .

4) We have as ind iv idual s , i nves ted of ourselves as wel l as f i nanc i a l l yto develop our f i shery . We have ca lcula ted t ha t on the average, wehave invested 150,000 in boats , gear , wei rs , e t c . The average f i sh ingincome as per the Kirby Report in the area i s approximately 25,000.

5) Connors Bros. , Limited, has s t a t ed tha t over the l a s t f i ve years , theyhave bought on the average , 5500MT of sard ines from t h i s area worth 1mil l ion and the wages to pack these in to sard ines has been another

3 mil l ion . his does not inc lude i tems such as the cos t of t he cansproduced in Ontar io , the conta iners produced from our fores t s and indeedthose involved in shipping.


48/60

RE M RINE P RK Page 2.

6 The I s l and communities have become use to the pace of l i f e su i t ed tosuch a reas the luxury of leaving ones doors unlocked. The establ i shmentof a Marine Park with i t s in f lux of tou r i s t s wil l dr a s t i c a l ly changethe way of l i f presen t ly on the I s land .

7 We f ee l our Indus t ry here has been a v iab le one for over 100 years andt ha t through proper management of our r esources can cont inue to bev iab le fo r another 100 year s .

8 We f ee l t ha t the establ i shment of a Marine Park wil l have a det rementa le f f ec t on the area and wi l l g r ea t l y d i s r up t the f i she ry and the CanadianSardine Indus t ry .


49/60

Brie f Presented a t Open House Deer Is landAPPENDIX FFisherman t o u r i s t s on Mascareno drops f i sh hooks

Channel weirs f i sh a l l hours no pro tec t ion dur ing the day

shut o f f airp lane f i sh spo t ters say herr ing come to shore long beforedark j u s t c an ' t see them to edge o f dark catch f i sh in sh u t -o f f average10 n igh t s a year c an ' t s tand someone to bother me o r scare f i sh those n igh t s as I m a d e ; to 2/3 o f year ' s work in those n igh t s we go middle o f day.

Wohite Is land eagle nes t people wi l l want to see them; t w i l l botherour weir.

Employ 3-4 people, some for share , some for $100 a day where i s unemploymentbecause would h i re more but c an ' t f ind them in summer t ime.100 hogsheads employment wi l l employ 100 people for daysScuba d ive r s wi l l run th ings around weir , scare herr ing down on u -l obs t e r s s ca l lops cu t weirs c lear d i ve r s always have r igh t o f way.cur few a f f e c t t o u r i s t snub mecompromise Ind ians

Chris t ian (church) Fundamentalis t park ' s t ou r i s t w i l l br ing l iquorl icences d o n t need themmore par t i e s and more problems, mean s to r e s , ca fe food o u t l e t s open onSunday.

Land owner higher taxes which c an ' t a f fo rdland w i l l no longer be f ree for a l l

to me zoning laws Dipper Harbour no more presen t wharves

own Parkers Is land prime land for you but to me j u s t woodland for mater ialto bui ld weir and cut f i r e wood for own use Park wi l l force taxes much higher expropr ia te


50/60

tour i s t s mean garbage more se rv i ce s more taxes

s a t i s f i e d in way o f l i f e , don t need government ass i s t ance

wi l l never unders tand how f ishermen don t f igure hour no man evermoved here and became success fu l f isherman born with the f ee l howcan you understand t in a few ours here?

Dale i t c he l lLambertv i l leDeer I s land , N.B.June 14 1984


51/60

APPENDIX

TO Parks CanadaFROM Michael Strong L'Etc te , N.B.

P. O. Box 604 St . Andrews, N.B. EOG 2XO

RE: Proposed National Marine Park

Dear S i r or Madam:There appears to be an incons is tency in the Parks Canada mandate o f es tab l i sh inga marine park. How i s it poss ib le to preserve the cu l tura l q u a l i t i e s o ft h i s region and a t the same t ime avoid the impact on our way o f l i f e bymyriads o f tour i s t s? The very character o f the s tudy area tha t makes ita t t ra c t i ve was only arr ived a t as a resul t o f generat ions o f people bui ld inga way o f l i f e from the f i shery . An i n f l u x o f tourism and the i ne v i t ab l edevelopment o f support indus try wi l l no doubt des t roy our way o f l i f e ,inc lud ing the beaut i fu l atmosphere o f t ra n q u i l i t y tha t surrounds it I ti s ev iden t you would have us become f i sh in an aquarium, or have us leaveto provide our home as a playground for tour i s t s

The fo l lowing are some ques t ions tha t have not been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y answereda t your open house:

1) A t what s tage o f planning would a park be invoked? Will the park beformulated down to very f ine d e ta i l s f i r s t , and then be l e g i s l a t e d ,or w i l l a go-ahead be given a t a rough conceptual s tage , l eav ing manyyears o f uncer ta in ty for local res iden ts as the park evo lves , changingi t s mandates, opera t ions , regula t ions and boundar ies?

2) The deci s ion making process to be used by Parks Canada i s f r i gh t fu l l yunclear. The p i l o t s tudy recommends tha t the l eve l o f i n t e r e s t o floca l res iden ts be c l e ar l y addressed. What does t h i s mean? Can t h i s be

/ 2


52/60

2 -

cons trued s being a t rue fac tor in the f ina l deci s ion to go aheadwith a park? f your answer i s yes, then a pUblic referendum on t h i si s sue should also be acceptable a t the poin t you f ee l loca l re s iden t sare sUf f i c i en t l y educated as to what a marine park w i l l be ) fyour answer i s no, . I f ee l we should be immediately in formed if we areto bide by an absolu te m in i s t e r ia l deci s ion . Also , both the l i k e l ihoodand the impl ica t ions o.f a yes m in i s t e r ia l deci s ion should be madec lear tha t : the needs o f the loca l res iden ts are t r u l y secondary tothe needs o f the ou t s ide r s v i s i t i n g the park, and those t ha t wi l l b en e f i tfrom s p i n - o f f bus inesses ou t s ide the park boundar ies .

The only j u s t procedure in my eyes in invok ing a park would be to beginwith an extremely accurate proposal inc lud ing a exact and permanentboundar ies b) comple te and f ina l plan o f land acqu i s i t i on c completeand f ina l plan o f regula t ions and res t r i c t i ons o f land and water uswi th in the park. The procedure could then be completed by a s implereferendum vote on the proposal by t he res iden ts wi th in the proposedpark boundar ies . An emphat ic NO from a L ' E te t e res iden t .

Michael B. Strong

June 16, 1984


53/60

I

PPENDIX F

As a land owner wi th in the described "study area", I submit the followingconcerns and remarks. These are not in order o f importance, but merelypoint out i tems which were not discussed a t yesterday's open meeting:

1. I f no land expropriat ion i s being considered, why are i s lands suchas Barnes, Simpsons, e tc . , label led as campsites and ean Island label ledas headquarters (Pilot . Study, Fig. 5). I f Mathew Island i s being depictedas an in ter t idal exploration zone and clam digging area (c losed formany years!) i s t to be accessed by water, o r by pr ivate ly owned land?

2. In what locations are v i s i t ing boats to be moored and where are t our i s t sto be loaded onto charter boats? Good locat ions are present ly scarceand access s usual ly granted by land owners to the ir neighbours.

doubt th i s o f fer wil l be extended to s t rangers . Are s tra teg ic shoreareas to be "bought" for such purposes?

3. "Conscientious" scuba divers present ly respect weirs, lobster t r aps ,regulations involving scal lopdiv ing, and the beauty o f certain s i t e s .y the misconduct o f some divers , however, the relat ionship with fishermen

i s , a t best , passable. Regulations are required regardless o f the future o f the marine park - speci f ical ly the se t t ing o f l imi ts on the number o f scallop l i cences i s sued per year. However, are al l privi leges now enjoyed to be suspended, and are local divers to conform to zone and t ime guidel ines se t by the park? (p. 32)

4. At present, a good relat ionship i s kept between boaters and fishermen, maintained by careful navigation through lobster t r ap s and maintaining a distance from weirs. I t i s easy to envisage v i s i t ing boaters and lobster t r ap s coming together in one tangled propel ler mess, resul t ingin stranded boaters, and worse - los t t r aps .

5. Finally, are al l ques t ions to be answered in detai l by the fal l meeting, and i s t to be put to a vote a t that time?

. . . /2


54/60

2 -

have purpose fu l ly kept my comments on i s sues which are secondary in importance(other than land expropr ia t ion) to the v i t a l i s sues concerning f i she ryand soc ia l impacts . These were well descr ibed yesterday and should havebeen sUf f i c i en t l y important as to rres t the progress o f es tab l i sh ing amarine park.

At presen t my deci s ion on the marine park can only be based on in format ionprov ided by the P i lo t Study ( i s t not i t s purpose?) , news media and theopen meet ing. require no fur ther in format ion. An area cannot be protec tedfor fu ture generat ions by des t roy ing the very people tha t have kept ttha t way.

My deci s ion s NO to a Marine Park, and am jo ined by 90 o f Deer Is landopen house at tendants your s t a t s June 5 open meet ing) .

Maria-Ines BuzetaL E te t e re s iden tJune 16, 1984


55/60

PPENDIX F

DEER ISL ND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

FEW COMMENTS

FOR THE

M RINE P RK STUDY TEAM

ND THE

CITIZENS OF DEER ISL ND

June 15 1984


56/60

The by-laws o f the Deer Is land Chamber o f Commerce, incorporated in 1979,s ta te tha t :

the objec t ives o f the Deer I s land Chamber o fCommerce sha l l be to promote and improve t radeand commerce and the economic, c i v i c , andsoc ia l wel fare o f the d i s t r i c t (A r t i c l e 1, Sect ion ii .

Thus, t he Chamber o f Commerce has gone on publ ic record as being opposedto any development which would cu r ta i l the cen tury-o ld commercial f i sheryin t h i s geographic area. The Chamber i s i n t e re s t e d , however, in see ingthe f e a s i b i l i t y s tudy for the proposed f edera l marine park for the areago forward as it wi l l al low for examinat ion o f many i s sues which touchour l i v e s .

Our i s land has always been the cen tre o f our universe, and we ve alwaysconsidered ourse lve s sa fe from in t rus ion . But t h i s i s 1984, and the twent ie tcentury i s threa ten ing to swallow us up. Growth o f c i t i e s in New Brunswickand the North Eastern United Sta tes , increase l e i su re t ime, regular vacat ionsfor a l l workers, a h igh ly mobile soc ie ty , and the need o f c i ty -dwel lersfor the those th ings w.e ve considered our God-given r igh t peace andqu ie t in God s natura l world have got us on the defens ive . We re r igh tin the cen tre o f t h i s outward movement o f urban areas.

Development i s t he b ig i s sue here and development i s going on, l i k e itor not . Look t t he change in the c i t y o f Eastpor t the developmentalong the St . Stephen water front , new planning and development for theCalais water f ront , the town o f St . Andrews, Minis ter s Is land and the e n t i r eSt . Andrews peninsu la; a l l municipal development. The St . Croix Riverhas been designated an h i s t o r i c waterway and St . Croix Is land i s beingdeveloped by the Uni t ed S ta te s Government. Campobello Is land i s beingdeveloped by a pr iva te company the par t t ha t i s n t already part o f thePark and then t h e r e s Pope s Fol ly or wi l l it be Redmonds Fol ly -or Wendall Brown s Fol ly . 2


57/60

What pro tec t ion do w have from outs ide forces - government big business ,o r wel l -hee led ind iv iduals a f t e r our land and water resources - wouldbe p o l i t i c ia n s look ing for a cause a f t e r our minds, and loca l press l o o n ~ for a s tory to sensa t iona l i ze a f t e r our minds and our dol lars .

L e t ' s remember we're a l l i s landers - we've got the same problems makinga l i v in g looking for se c ur i t y - keeping food on the t ab l e - c lo thes onour backs - a roo f over our heads - even the tax man. And because we'rei s landers we've got to remember our unique s i tu a t io n o f being so c lo seto the mainland - and so far from Fredericton and Ottawa, the home o fgovernment and the home o f Westons. Our i s land has been l i v ingin a s t a t e o f re -ac t ion for a long, long t ime. Today it s the Departmento f Tourism and Parks Canada with a duty for us to take par t in . We'repar t ic ipa t ing in the s tudy. That ' s new! For a l o t o f yes terdays , andmaybe even some tomorrows, it s been the Department o f Education and SchoolBoard out to save money by busing our high school s tudent s to Saint George,by put t ing o f f cons truc t ion o f an e lementary school , and its been theTransportat ion Department cu t t in g back on ferry schedules and serv ice ,ch ipsea l ing our roads, no s a l t in winter to break up the i ce . We're alwaysreac t ing as ind iv iduals and groups - ta lk ing about it in the s to r e s onthe wharfs , i n t h e wai t ing room o f the c l in i c , but rare ly uni ted maybebecause w don ' t have our own munic ipal head o f government tospeak for us

As a community-minded group, we've t r i ed to look a t severa l i s sues tha taf f ec t us - w be l i e v e our ques t ions are f a i r l y represen ta t ive o f i s landc i t i z ens concerns. If t h i s proposed park i s es tab l i shed in our area whatimpact wi l l it have on our l i ves - and if it i s n ' t - what w i l l t ha t mean,then? Because w ca n ' t shut out the outs ide world, o r the developmentsal l around us

I . Economy and Job-Opportuni ty1. evidence e x i s t s to show tha t the proposed park would not

i n t e r f e r e with the commercial f i shery? What guarantees are theretha t jobs and incomes wi l l not be los t? -


58/60

2. What evidence e x i s t s to show tha t the proposed park would in te r fe r ewi th o r c ur ta i l any area o f the commercial f i shery?

3. ow are marine parks f i she r i e s managed i n o ther regions o f theworld?

4 . owmany permanent and par t - t ime jobs would be created by thep ro po se d pa rk ? In both government and pr i va t e sectors?What wouldbe the c r i t e r i a for se l ec t i ng and plac ing job appl icants?

On the other hand i the park i s n ' t es tab l i shed:

5. Our so l e large employer the sardine plant i s fa i r l y old. What i the bu i l d i ng were severe ly damaged b y s torm, f i r e o r a f reaki nc ident would it be replaced? or would the workers e bused to Back Bay or Black ' s Harbour?

And i the f i s h s t ocks cont inue to dwindle whether s the re su l to f the nuc lear power plant t Point Lepreau or the pol lu tedL'e tang es tuary o r the global greenhouse e f f e c t or over f i sh i ngo f the o f f - shore waters by fore ign f l e e t s and our plant i s openf or shor ter per iods each year what other employment opportuni tye x i s t s ?

I I . Marine Tra f f i c1. owmuch protec t ion does the commercial f i shery curren t l y have

from recreat ional vess e l s in Passamaquoddy Bay?

2. What protec t ion would e avai lable i the proposed park were es tabl i sheWho wi l l have the say s to where people en t e r the area b y b o at where they t rave l when and how who wi l l po l i ce the region?

3. What pro t ec t i on wi l l be avai lab le without the proposed park, inthe l igh t o f the prev ious ly mentioned developments and a l l designedto increase tour ism in the region?


59/60

I I I . Transportation/Highways1. What k ind o f improvements in the ferry boat system can we expect

i the proposed park i s es tab l i shed?

2. What k ind o f improvement can be expec ted i the park i s n t es tab l i shed?1976 Fundy I s l e s Study recommendation for ferry boat serv ice .1983 Ass t . Deputy Minis ter s comment t i e i n g up ferry boat in Lete te .1984 spr ing cutback in schedule .

What k inds o f improvements in I s land roads can be expected , ithe proposed park i s es tab l i shed? old roads re-opened? e x i s t i n gones widened? new roads b u i l t around the v i l lages? parking areasou t s ide o f the v i l lages? pavement ra ther than chipsea l on roads?( sa l t not sand in winter ) .

IV. Land A cqu i s i t i on and USe1. What guarantees wi l l i s land c i t i z e n s have o f access to any land

acquired by the government i the Park is es tab l i shed?

Of a l l count ies in N.B. in 1974, Char lo t t e County had more acreagein the hands o f foreign and absented owners 9.8% o f proper t iesforeign-owned in 1974 s opposed to only 1.89% in Sain t John.

No Trespassing s ign not welcome.

V. Pol ic ing1. Many i s land c i t i z e n s express the concern o f f ear o f s t rangers

in the community a lack of secur i ty . What degree o f po l i cepro tec t ion can we expect i the park i s es tab l i shed?

2. n the o ther hand where i s our po l i c e pro tec t ion r igh t now?St . George detachment i s being cu t back, we're in t h e i r ju r i sd ic t io n .- reck less dr ivers- a l l nigh t par t i e s- vandalism t he f t poaching


60/60

VI. Medical1. I f Park es tab l i shed how wi l l our medical se rv i ce s be up-graded

to handle the numbers o f emergency cases , s t a f f increases? Adoctor here longer? f not what cutbacks?

VII . Commercial Development/Accommodation1. f Park were es tab l i shed wi l l there be zon ing imposed on bus inesses

s tha t r e s ide n t i a l areas wi l l be quie t? We are not zoned curren t lywhat t ype o f accommodation i s envisaged chale t s as a t FundyPark and campgrounds and t r a i l e r parks wi l l there be r e s t r i c t i o n sas to heigh t o f bui ld ings?

wi l l proposed development f i t our area and accommodate our l i f e s t y l e ?

These are some o f our concerns the t eam s no t expected to answer themton igh t , but if the government i s ser ious about such a development thenwe expec t these i s sue s to rece ive cons idera t ion and input from the c i t i z e n so f Deer I s land during the planning s tage .

f the park i s not implemented, then we on Deer Is land still have to deal wi th the increas ing developments around us.

west isles marine park public comments

Documents