Parks And Protected Areas: Proposed Plan - Page 2 - Conservation - Nova Scotia Fishing

Jump to content


Photo

Parks And Protected Areas: Proposed Plan


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 NS basser

NS basser

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • LocationHalifax NS

Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:34 AM

im really starting to wonder if it worth buying a license or fishing anymore. it seems like every time you turn around in this province there is new regulation stoping people from fishing or hunting. it is absolutely sickening!
  • 0

#22 Terran

Terran

    To do nothing is unacceptable.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2726 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:09 PM

Very interesting thread with a number of good points of view.

I can understand, in very specific cases, the use of the "nature reserves" and limitations to access. For instance, if the area contained endangered flora or fauna (ie: nesting piping plover) This however doesn't seem to be the purpose behind our governments intentions. Especially, when you consider the access to these areas by aboriginal peoples and carte blanche usage.

I suspect that the access for native peoples is simply a way to avoid another Marshall Inquiry situation.

However, it should be noted that historically, hunting and fishing as well as other uses of our forests and lands, was practised by our forefathers, as well. Settlers and colonists that came to these shores and established the first communities and eventually created this country. These practices date back hundreds of years. This in itself would lend one to believe that such established uses by a "distinct society" of peoples would hold some vested interests as historically significant.

How old does a practice have to be to be recognized as being culturally significant to a society?

I found this quote from an article I found to be quite poignant:

Nova Scotia has a long history of hunting, fishing and trapping and most Nova Scotians support these activities as long as they are conducted in an orderly and safe manner. The government of Nova Scotia recognized this in 2002, with the passage of an amendment to the wildlife act which enshrined heritage hunting and fishing in law. Nova Scotia anglers are also fortunate in that we are one of the few provinces in the country where residents have the right to angle. Section 3 of the angling act of Nova Scotia states: Any resident of the province shall have the right to go on foot along the bank of any river, stream or lake, upon and across any uncultivated lands and Crown lands for the purposes of lawfully fishing with rod and line in such rivers, streams or lakes. Also any resident of the province shall have the right to go on, upon or across any rivers, streams or lake in boat or canoe or otherwise, for the purpose of lawfully fishing with rod and line in such rivers, streams or lakes.
(Angling Act allows fishing enthusiastssome liberties on private property - http://www.capebretonpost.com/Opinion/Columns/2010-05-25/article-1156362/Angling-act-allows-fishing-enthusiasts-some-liberties-on-private-property/1)

I have brought up the Angling Act on other occasions (for other arguments), but I find that it seems somehow very important in this situation. (Angling Act - http://nslegislature...tes/angling.htm) As stated in the above quote.

It should also be recognized that previous governments have also recognized the importants of our outdoor heritage in the Wildlife Act - http://nslegislature...es/wildlife.htm.

Section 2, paragraph (ba): The object and purpose of this Act is to: (ba)recognize that angling, hunting and trapping are valued and safe parts of the heritage of the Province and that the continuing opportunity to participate in those activities will be maintained in accordance with this Act and the regulations;

It would appear that in order to implement their current plans, with regard to our Provincial lands, the current government either plans to make changes to these Acts or that they think they can wiggle around and through them.

It is very interesting that they have raised this "Land Preservation" issue while systematically planning the destruction of the remaining 88% of our Province. Shimanoman mentions open pen salmon farming in a post above. Perhaps the government realizes the affect these sites will have on future fishing opportunities and figures to eliminate the future "bitching" by anglers as our waters are depleted of wild angling opportunity?

The distraction from aquaculture,clear-cutting, biomass burning, pipelines, mining, oil exploration and future resource rapings of 88% of our Province may make some feel the preservation of 12% is of GREAT IMPORTANTS. The fact that the government has abandoned environmental assessments for "streamlining" approval processes while boasting of "Protecting" a pitiful 12% is sickening.

Yes, it is incumbent for everyone who values our heritage and the future use of these lands to be active in this process and stand up for our rights. However, I wonder if this isn't just a shell game in order to distract from a bigger picture?

Terran
  • 0

"In these sad and ominous days of mad fortune chasing, every patriotic, thoughtful citizen, whether he fishes or not, should lament that we have not among our countrymen more fishermen."  Grover Cleveland
 


#23 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:16 PM

Yes, it is incumbent for everyone who values our heritage and the future use of these lands to be active in this process and stand up for our rights. However, I wonder if this isn't just a shell game in order to distract from a bigger picture?


As I noted in the first post and in several other threads, protecting 12% goes hand-in-hand with the NDP government's strategy to rape the remaining 88%.

As for restricting access, though, I think that you and I are reading this differently. I see very few proposed restrictions on access; rather, the restrictions are on activities. You can hike, picnic, etc. on virtually all of the proposed nature reserves; just don't be caught with a rod or gun.

Paul
  • 0

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#24 Terran

Terran

    To do nothing is unacceptable.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2726 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:43 PM

Paul,

I wouldn't disagree with you. I simply feel that the proposed restriction to certain activities as a restriction to access. Legal and respectable hunting or fishing on these lands being restricted could almost be viewed as a type of discrimination. As I stated, I can certainly see the nature reserve designation being used to protect sensitive or endangered flora and fauna (species at risk), but what are the guidelines? Hiking but not biking? Motor vehicle access? ATV use? Picnicing but not berry picking?

I've read over the web links you posted pretty well. I find the lack of access to fishable waters in the "nature reserve" areas an interesting decision. Especially taking into account the Aboriginal "accessability".

Perhaps access isn't the proper term, but if one person can be on the land for their preferred interest, yet another is limited or restricted is their access to enjoying that land not being restricted?

Semantics? Perhaps.

Fact is Paul, it is an excellent topic and I don't wish to distract from the discussion. Just wanted to add my two cents. For what they're worth.

Cheers,

Terran
  • 0

"In these sad and ominous days of mad fortune chasing, every patriotic, thoughtful citizen, whether he fishes or not, should lament that we have not among our countrymen more fishermen."  Grover Cleveland
 


#25 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:57 PM

Fact is Paul, it is an excellent topic and I don't wish to distract from the discussion. Just wanted to add my two cents. For what they're worth.


You're not distracting from the discussion at all. In fact, I'll gladly add your two cents to my two cents and round them up to a nickel.

We may get some of the missing information that you identified as they continue to populate the website with the details regarding the specific proposed nature reserves. I'm holding off on submitting my thoughts to the government until I get those details.

Paul
  • 0

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#26 Exstreamfisherman

Exstreamfisherman

    Streamside ProStaff

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • LocationMoncton, NB

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:13 PM

Paul you don't want to be like the rest of us and go off half cocked..with just enough information to do damage and hurt ourselves... kinda like running with scissors..

All this talk about land rights etc... brings to mind a kind of 1990 OKA, Quebec feeling
  • 0

#27 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:23 PM


Paul you don't want to be like the rest of us and go off half cocked..with just enough information to do damage and hurt ourselves... kinda like running with scissors..


I'm buoyed by the fact that they're actively seeking feedback before implementing the plan. I figure that I have one shot to submit a coherent, informed, and well-reasoned response. I also suspect that they'll blow off any input that's too hot-headed.

With that in mind, I will definitely not be submitting something half-assed when I have almost two months before the deadline to make a complete ass of myself.

Paul
  • 0

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#28 Exstreamfisherman

Exstreamfisherman

    Streamside ProStaff

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • LocationMoncton, NB

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:39 PM

Atta boy... glad to see you haven't lost that defeatest spirit.. all or nothing, go big or stay at home, all for one etc etc..

I understand what you mean however. I want to voice my opinion and then I find myself mired in additional information that is needed to make the decision because it is in no way just black and white.. even after a great deal of time and effort by those who are going to make their voice heard, what good will come of it. Hopefully there will be benefits to being given this opportunity to inform the government of what we all as a Province would like. I now live in NB but I still consider NS my home.

I hate feeling this angry and agitated all the time, it is for reasons like this that I don't watch the evening news or read the paper daily.. I get enough stress in my life on a regular basis from websites that I don't need to seek out more stress. It is almost like those who are making the decisions don't live here, they don't partake in any of the activities that the majority of population have done over the decades... camping, hiking, fishing, hunting etc.. and having the stipulation in many cases where one group of people can utilize all aspects of the land while others have to stand and watch them, infuriates me..
  • 0

#29 Terran

Terran

    To do nothing is unacceptable.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2726 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:54 PM

Paul,

I know I've mentioned it before, but wouldn't this be the perfect situation for an organization that represented the Recreational Anglers of our Province?

In a couple of other threads I have sort of proposed a "N.S.Confederation of Recreational Anglers" or some equally distinguished named group. Again, if the anglers in our province could put aside their individual interests (ie: trout, bass, salmon, etc) and focus attentions on common interests such as habitat protection, (etc), wouldn't a lobby of that kind be beneficial in a situation like this?

I know that the NSFAH has been mentioned, and they certainly have a role to play, but again there seems to be dissension amongst those ranks, as well.

It would be beneficial to all if those with interests in recreational angling could overcome some of the "issues" in order to present a united front in situations, such as this.

Just a thought anyway. Pretty certain it could never happen. But it would be effective.

Terran
  • 0

"In these sad and ominous days of mad fortune chasing, every patriotic, thoughtful citizen, whether he fishes or not, should lament that we have not among our countrymen more fishermen."  Grover Cleveland
 


#30 Terran

Terran

    To do nothing is unacceptable.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2726 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:01 PM

Atta boy... glad to see you haven't lost that defeatest spirit.. all or nothing, go big or stay at home, all for one etc etc..

I understand what you mean however. I want to voice my opinion and then I find myself mired in additional information that is needed to make the decision because it is in no way just black and white.. even after a great deal of time and effort by those who are going to make their voice heard, what good will come of it. Hopefully there will be benefits to being given this opportunity to inform the government of what we all as a Province would like. I now live in NB but I still consider NS my home.

I hate feeling this angry and agitated all the time, it is for reasons like this that I don't watch the evening news or read the paper daily.. I get enough stress in my life on a regular basis from websites that I don't need to seek out more stress. It is almost like those who are making the decisions don't live here, they don't partake in any of the activities that the majority of population have done over the decades... camping, hiking, fishing, hunting etc.. and having the stipulation in many cases where one group of people can utilize all aspects of the land while others have to stand and watch them, infuriates me..


Exstream,

I absolutely agree with your sentiments in this regard. The frustration and infuriation when it comes to government "handling" of so many issues is almost beyond tolerance.

What has happened to Elected Representation?

Terran
  • 0

"In these sad and ominous days of mad fortune chasing, every patriotic, thoughtful citizen, whether he fishes or not, should lament that we have not among our countrymen more fishermen."  Grover Cleveland
 


#31 Stefan

Stefan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:17 PM

the least we can do is let the gov't know how we feel

http://www.novascoti...volved/tell-us/
  • 0
Keep Calm and Fish On

#32 Stefan

Stefan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:37 PM

just re-read it... why not catch and release restrictions on the nature reserves? surely c&r would discourage a few fish hogs...
  • 0
Keep Calm and Fish On

#33 Perry

Perry

    Moderator

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1353 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:53 PM

You are right! More I thought about it I was comeing to the same conclusion
  • 0

Just because you fish a lot doen't mean you are great or even good. It just means you fish a lot!!


#34 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:13 PM

just re-read it... why not catch and release restrictions on the nature reserves? surely c&r would discourage a few fish hogs...

You are right! More I thought about it I was comeing to the same conclusion


I think it depends on the objectives of each specific nature reserve. For example, I could see mandatory catch and destroy of invasive species and mandatory C&R of native species in nature reserves that harbour both. In nature reserves in which salmonoids have been extirpated, I can see mandatory C&R of invasives if there is an objective to increase biomass. In other reserves, where the focus is on preserving specific species of flora, I can see leaving bag limits intact.

I haven't checked today, so I'm not sure how far along they are in populating the website with the details for each nature reserve. Until I see the details, I'm not sure if a "one policy fits all" approach will be effective.

Paul
  • 0

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#35 Shimanoman

Shimanoman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1129 posts
  • LocationWaverley, Nova Scotia

Posted 07 March 2013 - 01:09 PM

The problem that I have with the whole exercise is that it appears that the implementation may be a bit rushed in order to create another plank for the upcoming election. I have no problem with areas being created "to protect them". Is the protection from development? then I say "Yes". If on the other hand, it is to "protect" from our citizenry engaged in traditional, enjoyable, recreational pursuits,
in particular, angling and "preserve" for that portion of our citizenry who find angling of any sort, repugnant to them, then I say "no".
If the protection is to preserve for future generations who will also enjoy the pleasant, pastoral, and piscatorial pursuits, I say a resounding "yes". I still would like to see a lengthy period of sober second thought and consultation, prior to implementation.

Regards....
  • 0
Life is too short, to take too much, too seriously, for too long ....Vernon P.Fraser

#36 Terran

Terran

    To do nothing is unacceptable.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2726 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 09 March 2013 - 08:31 AM

It appears two kilometers of Bras D'Or lake shoreline, near Iona, will soon become a "nature reserve".

A story dated March 8th, in the Chronicle Herald, indicates 16 hectares of Cape Breton woodlands will soon become "protected". To view the story, check out: C.B. woodland covering over 16 hectares to be nature reserve - http://thechronicleh...-nature-reserve

Considering the topic of this thread, I thought this might be of interest to some.

Terran
  • 0

"In these sad and ominous days of mad fortune chasing, every patriotic, thoughtful citizen, whether he fishes or not, should lament that we have not among our countrymen more fishermen."  Grover Cleveland
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users