Sable Island National Park:  Comments

July 8, 2010: Ensure that all flora and fauna—including grey seals—are protected.

To address the comment of “Name Withheld”, nobody is jumping to conclusions about a seal hunt on Sable Island. In January of this year during the Seal Hunt Advisory Committee meeting in Halifax, DFO encouraged sealers to submit proposals for seal hunting on Sable Island and promised to work with other government agencies/departments to get the proposals approved. In April of this year during a meeting of Subsupply - Fisheries & Aquaculture, NS Fisheries/Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau agreed, when requested by MLAs Harold Theriault and Christopher D’Entrement, to ask federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea for a seal cull/bounty in the absence of markets for seal products, and committed to using NS tax dollars to explore markets for seal products. Recently there surfaced a feasibility study commissioned by the government which contemplated a large scale grey seal cull on Sable Island as a population control measure. The fishing/sealing industry has been lobbying the provincial and federal governments for access to both Hay and Sable Island for many years. Their lobbying succeeded in securing them access to grey seal pups on Hay Island three years ago and the Wilderness Areas Protection Act was amended and passed to facilitate future kills on that protected island. Given the above facts, it is not unreasonable for one to draw the conclusion grey seals on Sable Island are under threat.

 

Your suggestion the “seal issue” and informative public debate are mutually exclusive is unfounded. All flora and fauna on Sable Island must be safeguarded against intense industry pressure. We must look at all aspects of Sable Island and all integral parts of its ecosystem, and strive to ensure the entire island is protected. We must make these efforts now before government has made all the decisions for us, at which point it may be too late.

 

In reply to P. Robinson of Victoria, both possible designations allow for killing of grey seals. Under the care of Parks Canada, a cull of grey seals could be undertaken if it was deemed "necessary." This decision would be based on "science", just as DFO's decisions are supposedly based on "science." As we all know, DFO's science is twisted to fit a particular political agenda. In short, neither designation guarantees the protection of grey seals.
Bridget Curran, Director, Atlantic Canadian Anti-Sealing Coalition, Halifax, NS

June 22, 2010:  A cultural resource - interaction of nature and human activities.

The government of Canada deserves acclaim for recognizing the unique value of Sable Island.  Proposals to designate the island as either a National Park or a National Wildlife Area are both worthy of consideration.  Both are commendable in that they will help to assure the future of this rare landscape.  The ecosystem, wildlife and geology have long been studied and valuable research continues, bringing greater insight on marine mammal, bird, horse and plant populations and diversity.  However, the inclusion of Sable’s cultural resources makes Parks Canada a more appropriate entity for the broader management of Sable Island for Canada.

Perhaps the less studied but equally valuable aspect of Sable is as a cultural resource. Since John Cabot first sited Sable in 1497 the island has been the site of countless temporary and semi permanent settlements that are an integral part of the island’s, the country’s and the world’s international maritime cultural heritage.  During the early 1500s Portuguese explorers began leaving livestock on the island as a strategic advantage in exploration of the Americas.  The French had a multiyear settlement beginning in 1598 and by the 1630s we find both Acadians and Bostonians setting up temporary camps on Sable.  Others including Le Mercier develop more substantial settlements by the mid 1700s, including horse farming.  Throughout these centuries countless merchant, fishing and exploration vessels wreck on the island, leaving sailors to live in makeshift huts built from ship timbers.  We also see evidence on charts from the 1700s of campsites devoted to harvesting the seals and other wildlife on the island.  With the advent of the 19th-century the Canadian Humane Establishment begins a century and a half presence that sets a world standard in the saving of lives and commerce.

These aspects of Canada’s role in her own and the world’s cultural heritage would be better served by Parks Canada stewardship than the narrower, but valuable objectives of a National Wildlife Area designation.  Parks Canada has a stellar record of preserving wildlife and natural areas, but in the case of Sable has the additional advantage of explicitly including a “Cultural Resource Management Policy” in its stated Management Policy.  Parks Canada will adhere to principles of value, public benefit, understanding, respect, and integrity.

Visitation will need to continue at Sable for many reasons; certainly for future study of wildlife, ecosystems, cultural heritage and perhaps controlled tourism.  Parks Canada would be better suited to manage the intricacies of visitation.

Part III of Parks Canada’s Guiding Principles and Operational Policies explicitly details the value of a cultural resource such as Sable.  It is also interesting to note that paragraph 1.1.6 of Part III states, “A cultural resource that derives its historic value from the interaction of nature and human activities will be valued for both its cultural and natural qualities.”  It could be that nowhere else in Canada has there been an isolated example of this interaction of nature and human activities.  Horses would not exist on Sable without the interaction of humans.  Humans have used the island as a base for sealing and fishing operations, the surrounding banks have been fished for centuries and early charts show the location of sealing camps.  Large experiments have taken place with attempts at forestation and there may be introduced species.  Certainly we know that foxes, rabbits and rats, all introduced by humans, have impacted the wildlife over the centuries.  The future may also hold further interaction with the harvesting of natural resources.  Certainly, Sable is a place where there has been “interaction of nature and human activities.”  It will continue to be the case.

I am part of a team that is interested in the archaeological cultural resources of Sable Island.  The project has been of interest to the Nova Scotia Museum and been discussed with Gerry Forbes in detail.  It is likely that a continued human management presence on Sable will help to preserve the cultural history, but make it accessible to qualified researchers working within parameters that also assure the integrity and protection of the environment and wildlife.  The main point is that the environment, wildlife and cultural history are all worthy of protection and study.

 I believe stewardship by the Parks Canada is more likely to preserve both the natural and cultural resources of Sable Island for the future, for the people of Canada and the world who have interacted with the island, wildlife and environment.  I first visited Sable Island in 1987 and have been intrigued with all aspects of this jewel of the Canadian Maritimes.  There is much to learn about this unique place beyond its obvious attributes flora and fauna.  Without proper management much of Sable's history, still hidden within its sands, would be lost.

William Barton, 279 Sagamore Street, S. Hamilton, MA  01982, USA

May 20, 2010: Thanks and caution

Thanks to Minister of Environment Jim Prentice and Minister of Nova Scotia Natural Resources John MacDonnell for their foresight in designating Sable Island as a National Park.

 

This National Park is indeed cause for celebration and I am sure the Green Horse Society and the Ecology Action Centre had a leading hand in championing the protection of this remote Atlantic Island and its wild horses. I agree that National Wildlife Area (NWA) designations have their limits.

 

We looked at NWA as one option for what is now the Khutzyemateen grizzly sanctuary (Class A provincial park) that we at Valhalla Society spear-headed for protection (took 9 years). I would be cautious about the management plan opening the area up for tourism/visitation as tourism over-development allowed by Parks Canada is now the bane of our mountain national parks.

Wayne McCrory, Valhalla Wilderness Society, British Columbia

April 8, 2010: The Station must be maintained

Parks Canada has the experienced staff, capability and knowledge that should allow for the proper management and protection of Sable Island.

 

The regulations that will be developed to manage and protect the island should allow very limited public access, and the time of year that visitors arrive should be controlled to minimize impact on protected wildlife & native species.

 

An interpretive centre at the NS Natural History Museum is a great idea, as well as possibly one near the airport for visitors that decide to charter a plane (or buy a seat on a charter) to the island.

 

The station on Sable needs to be maintained for ongoing wildlife and environmental research, environmental monitoring work, as well as day-to-day management of island operations (basically all human activities) and its continued presence should be a focus of the proposed management plan.

 

It would seem that the way the Island has been managed in the last 5 years is what needs to continue and the content of the regulations, related guidelines and management plan should be developed in consultation with those that have been committed to the Island's protection, namely: Zoe Lucas, Gerry Forbes & Mark Butler.

Megan, Fall River

April 6, 2010: The unique Sable experience should be delivered in unique ways

There is an opportunity to do something special with Sable Island under the National Parks Act. Sufficient legislative protection, administrative experience and interpretive expertise are available within the Parks Canada system to effectively manage and interpret both the natural and cultural heritage of the island. We must work to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to take on this additional responsibility within the parks system.

 

However, visitation to the island should be restricted to genuine scientific and administrative purposes. Access to the island for the wider public should be enhanced by substantial investment in technology and imaginative delivery systems that package virtual visits to the island. The possibilities are many but could include live web cams; regular and in depth opportunities for live discussion with interpreters, researchers and managers on or associated with the island; school loan kits and materials; publications; exhibitions; lectures and public presentations; pod casts; videos; and other electronic media that bring the island to mainland visitors in real time and in informative and engaging ways. The unique Sable Island experience should be delivered to the public in unique ways quite separate from the “bums in seats” pressures in the usual public attraction.

 

The need for human presence on the island should not be overemphasized. Obviously a custodial presence is required if facilities are to be maintained for the use of visiting specialists. However, this custodial presence should be minimized to limit the physical impact on the island as well as to ensure that vast financial resources are not consumed in on site management. To date, largely through the good graces of the personnel involved, human presence on the island has been available at bargain basement rates. There will be great pressure to expand the on island commitment, and the costs, in a normalized government operation and great care must be taken to ensure that the management environment on island is maintained at a practical and affordable level.

 

And, by the way, should we not also be working towards World Heritage Site designation for Sable Island?
Robert Frame, Dartmouth.

April 5, 2010: Maintain research, monitoring, and protection—a national treasure

We support initiatives to maintain Sable Island in its natural state, more or less like it is at present, which means maintaining the Island's Station for environmental research, monitoring, and protection. The recent meeting at St. Mary's University, with a mostly receptive and concerned audience, was informative and helped us understand the options for Sable's future. Based on what we learned at the meeting and from visiting wilderness areas and national parks, especially the Nahanni National Park Reserve in the NWT, we certainly favor national park status for Sable. More specifically, we favor Sable becoming a national park with, as Mark Butler from the Ecology Action Centre mentioned, a remote-northern-park set of regulations. Regulations that permit public access, but in a very limited way from both the number-of-visitors-per-year allowed and a time-of-year window of opportunity for visiting, and with visitor facilities limited to the bare necessities. The island preserved forever in, as much as possible, its natural state needs to be the result of these deliberations; anything else, in our opinion, indicates human failure to protect a natural treasure.
Richard and Grace Beazley, Halifax

March 10, 2010: What matters is how human activities are managed

The Ecology Action Centre got involved in Sable matters in 2003 when the federal government was considering closing the station. We fully agreed with Zoe Lucas and many others that a year round human presence on the Island was crucial to protecting the Island’s ecology and maintaining research activities on Sable. Because of the weight of our arguments and public support, the federal government agreed and extended funding for the Station until 2012. As we engage in the debate about what designation would be best for Sable Island, a national park, a national wildlife area or a third, yet undefined option, we are keeping in mind the lessons learned from the past decade: the need for long-term, stable funding for the Station and its stewardship activities.

 

As we go forward, what matters for Sable, is how we manage human activities on and around the Island. If an appropriate management plan is developed and enforced, the Island will be okay. We need to limit the number of visitors and infrastructure on the Island and clearly define permitted activities. In setting those rules we need to be cautious and conservative. While the focus of the recent debate so far has been on the potential for overuse and the impacts of tourism, other human activities can have an impact on the Island including offshore oil and gas and the oft-touted, never materialized hunt or cull of grey seals.

 

At the present time, we favour a national park because we feel that Parks Canada has the experience, resources and expertise to manage and protect the Island. However, we cannot endorse the park option until we see the management plan and learn much more about how human activities on around the Island will be managed. We value the National Wildlife Area program administered by Canadian Wildlife Service, but lament the chronic underfunding of the program, which puts at risk the ecological integrity of NWAs across the country and undermines the ability of a NWA to protect Sable. The federal government should properly fund the NWA program.

 

The weather and geography will also limit access to Sable Island. It is also expensive to get to Sable Island which means the average person with limited income has little chance of getting to the Island. It would be nice if there was some way that each year a small number could enter a lottery to visit the Island. Most of us won’t and shouldn’t visit the Island, but we can be virtual visitors through the web or an interpretative centre(s). It would make sense for Parks Canada to team up with the Nova Scotia Museum of Natural History or Maritime Museum.

Mark Butler, Ecology Action Centre

March 8th, 2010: Protecting the wildlife—including Grey Seals

I attended the Sable Island meeting last week and while I did find it informative I am left with some concerns. First I do want to commend the work over the years of those who have dedicated their time and energy to protecting what is truly a remarkable and magical place and I have no doubt that many of these people, Zoe, Mark and Bill included, who are leaning toward the National Park scenario, are basing their view on a genuine heart-felt belief that such a scenario would best protect Sable. I have no doubt about that.

 

Based on my own albeit limited knowledge of Sable, what makes it remarkable and worthy of protection is the fragility of its structure and ecosystems, its indigenous biodiversity and the wildlife that during the course of a year call it home. In my view, protecting Sable includes protecting a wide range of life from the grasses, rare orchids and sundew inhabiting the ponds to protecting the indigenous wildlife—grey seals included. However, the DFO recently announced a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for grey seals on Sable Island -- stating that roughly 39,000 grey seals could be "harvested" from the island. How is a commercial seal hunt compatible with a national park?

 

Biodiversity is the variety of life and all its processes, and includes the range of living organisms within an ecosystem, their genetic differences, and the communities in which they naturally occur. The biodiversity of Sable Island obviously includes the grey seal population. It is one of their last refuges on earth. They are not doing any damage to the island and despite the formidable public relations effort being waged against them, there is no proof they have anything to do with the cod not coming back.

 

A national park—and its capacity to safeguard nature’s balance and self-regulatory mechanisms, including very complex predator-prey relationships—must account for and protect all wildlife in that area, not just those species particularly favoured by some humans.

 

Case in point: The NDP's recent amendments to Nova Scotia's Wilderness Area Protection Act—an important and hard-won legislation aimed at protecting not only the precious landscapes of the province but the biodiversity found there—completely undermined the spirit and intent of the Act by allowing the authorization of commercial seal hunts on Hay Island. The recent changes to the legislation have simply made it easier for the Minister to authorize the "hunt" without having to resort to the dubious argument used by the previous government two years in a row—inadequately supported by either historical or scientific evidence—that the killing of seals was a way to protect nature. Thankfully for the seals, this year's hunt on Hay Island did not happen in the end, but not because of any scientific, moral or ethical imperative stating that it's likely not a good idea to kill seals in a protected area, but because there was just no money in it.

 

Based on my understanding from the meeting, Park status (whether national or wildlife) doesn't seem to make any difference to the seals on Sable Island, and this is what troubles me.

 Why is there no protection of the island's wildlife from commercial activity? Further, who will be writing the management plan for Sable and where will the grey seal figure into that?

 

Looking forward to hearing back if anyone has some of these answers,
Linda Pannozzo, Senior Researcher, GPI Atlantic

March 8th, 2010: Conservation needs best accommodated by Park designation

In my view, the conservation needs of Sable Island would be best accommodated if it is designated as a national park, assuming that the subsequent management plan is designed to sustain its indigenous biodiversity-at-risk – its natural ecological communities and native species.

 

This would be better than Sable Island being designated as a national wildlife area, in part because Parks Canada is relatively well funded (compared with the Canadian Wildlife Service) to steward its natural land holdings, including the management of visitation within sustainable limits. Other possible solutions, such as an arms-length agency or a non-governmental organization that is specific to Sable Island, would not be suitable because they would always suffer from the vagaries of uncertain funding, and moreover they would have to develop the conservation and management expertise that is already held by Parks Canada.

Bill Freedman, Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

March 7, 2010:  the Sable Island Community

At the March 3rd meeting—the Sable Island Update at Saint Mary’s—Parker Donham heaped praise on the role Mark Butler and I have played in the effort to secure long-term conservation and stewardship for the island. At the time I was  surprised and did not respond. However, what I should have said—and will say now—is that although we both have worked hard and consistently on this issue, many other people have had equally, and in some cases exceedingly, important roles.

 

Although within government there are bureaucrats who had (and some may still have) attitudes ranging from disinterested to obstructive, they are outnumbered by public servants (managers, lawyers, researchers, technicians) at all levels of government who have been committed to finding long-term solutions to the uncertain funding for the Sable Island Station, and to the less-than-comprehensive legislation which presently provides for conservation of the island. Many of these individuals are committed not only professionally, but personally.

 

Outside government, there are the citizens—academics, business people, representatives of NGOs etc—who have shown their support, asked questions, and raised issues. Many have been following and contributing to this discussion since the mid-1990s. The discussion has gone through various stages, often controversial. With the Minister’s January 25th announcement regarding the option of a National Park designation, the process has captured media attention and generated greater interest .

 

Most of this is good. Discussion and dialogue can only help—government is reminded that the public is paying attention, and is also reminded that most people are eager to make rational and well-informed contributions to the process.

 

Thus, achievements attributed to Mark Butler and myself are in reality the achievements of the Sable Island community. We haven’t been voices in the wilderness—we’ve worked with the 100s of people who wrote letters, attended meetings, and offered expertise and insight. Their contribution has been so effective because they paid attention and enhanced their passion and heart-felt concerns with facts and well-informed commentary.

 

These citizens and bureaucrats—and some politicians—have taken Sable this far along the way to a secure and safe future, and they will continue to do so. Without them no amount of work by Mark and/or me would have taken us much of anywhere.

 

Both Mark and I have responded with cautious optimism to a possible National Park designation for Sable Island. We look forward to hearing more about both options—National Wildlife Area and National Park—and encourage the federal and provincial governments to begin hold public consultations as soon as possible.

 

In the meantime, thanks to the citizens, bureaucrats, and politicians who are making genuine and informed contributions to securing long-term stewardship for Sable Island.

Zoe Lucas, Sable Island Green Horse Society.

March 7, 2010: Some essential considerations

It has taken a few days for me to sort through all the different points of view at the Sable Island meeting on Wednesday. I look forward to these updates each year, first the reports of the scientists, then Zoe's always fascinating (and visually inspiring) yearly reports. This year, however, was palpably different. The controversy initiated by the potential Parks designation had been evident on the news and Facebook for weeks.

 

It's not that this is a new issue. Anyone who has been following Sable Island over the years knows that it has been in an uncertain and vulnerable condition for years. The funding bridge gave people a moment to breathe, but it was only for five years and it was evident that some new solution had to be found. It's important to allow ourselves to look beyond a historic relation with the Coast Guard, that looks simple and comfortable from a distance.

 

It's worked, yes. But it's been in crisis for a while, because the Coast Guard does not have the finances, the mandate, or the interest, to maintain the station. It was, in many ways (as pointed out at the meeting) a bit of a solution of momentary convenience when the horses were protected under the shipping act. It certainly made more sense historically, when Sable Island had lighthouses, rescue crews, telegraph stations--all to support the ships attempting to sail by. With the onset of technology and radar, this has changed.

 

It's easy to be nervous about the Park system taking over Sable Island. I know that my first reaction was, oh, no, not (and you can fill in the blank for any popular Park). However, after listening to the speakers and thinking a bit more clearly, I realize that Sable Island can be protected, and perhaps be protected more efficiently, in a different format. There are some essential considerations.

 

1. Sable Island is VERY difficult to get to. It's not just having the hundreds of dollars necessary for a seat on the plane (or thousands if you're chartering the whole plane). It's weather. I went to Sable Island as part of a raffle group and it took many tries in the most likely weather season to actually get there. We went to the airport hotel, went back home, packed up food another day, unpacked it . . . and so on.

 

2. It is essential that the station is maintained, both as a gatherer of scientific information and a source of expertise that allows for safe and intelligent use of the island. This is a fragile, unique piece of land. It has been IMPROVED over the last decades, and a lot of valuable research occurs every year.

 

3. It takes a sustainable form of funding to assure future responsible management of the island. Having dealt with grants and other funding sources, it is essential that the funding comes from an agency that will guarantee future funding.

 

I'm also acutely aware of the roles that both Zoe and Gerry have played in Sable Island's life. It becomes even more important that a reliable, long term solution is put in place while they can be involved in creating what they see as sustainable. I listened carefully and despite the fact that bureaucrats slip in those bureaucratic words that make us all suspicious, I think we should put our energies into making sure that we are involved in the consultations that shape just what a Park designation would look like. If you know Sable, what are you most worried about and how could this be safeguarded? We all need to think about ways that Sable can survive, and thrive.
Rita Wilson

March 6, 2010: regarding the March 3rd Sable Update meeting

I thought that everyone involved did a first class job of bringing some much needed clarity to a number of important questions about the ongoing process, as well as some useful reassurance about what is "solid" and not threatened, whatever the ultimate decision. Must admit that I was probably among the vast majority who felt more comfortable with what we heard from Parks than from the Wildlife Service, but it was really good that they both were there. Hopefully the subsurface issues can be resolved to everyone`s satisfaction with a Parks option.

Larry Murray, former Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

February 15, 2010.  From Leonard Preyra, MLA for Halifax Citadel - Sable Island

On January 25, the federal and provincial governments signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to work collaboratively towards designation of the Island as a protected area “as a means to recognize and celebrate its national and provincial significance and to protect Sable Island for present and future generations”.

The MOU sets concrete steps both governments will take over the next twelve months leading to the negotiation of an agreement which would designate the area for protection and ensure the conservation of the island's unique and fragile ecosystem and wildlife.

By the end of April a task group appointed by each level of government will identify and consider legal, legislative, jurisdictional, and technical issues and implications to be addressed as part of the process and make recommendations to the responsible ministers on the creation of either a national wildlife area or a national park. The smaller task group will allow officials to prepare necessary background documentation before putting any recommendation(s) out for public consultation. Composition of this task group is being finalized; however, it is understood that the task group may need to engage individuals with particular expertise and knowledge as required.

At the end of their work the task group will provide recommendations regarding Sable Island and federal protection legislation. It is too soon to predict what the outcome of the task group review may be. Although the mechanism for public consultation has not yet been established, both levels of government have made it clear that there will be meaningful and inclusive consultations before they negotiate an agreement and designate the area for protection under either the Canada National Parks Act or the Canada Wildlife Act.

Sable Island is also home to scientists and researchers studying its wildlife and habitat and those on the front lines of our struggle to document and understand atmospheric and coastal zone issues. The MOU acknowledges that the research facilities on Sable Island support “a range of programs that have served the public interest, including weather, atmospheric environment and pollution monitoring and science, fisheries and oceans research, offshore worker emergency refuge, communications and understanding and protection of our natural and cultural heritage”. Both levels of government have highlighted the value of the island as a research platform and the importance of a human presence for conservation purposes. It is expected that any designation will consider long-term provisions for research and other essential facilities.

In summary, we should not assume that in the absence of a long-term management plan underpinned by legally clear and enforceable rules Sable Island is and will remain protected. This MOU recognizes the natural, cultural and scientific significance of Sable Island and acknowledges our stewardship and obligation to protect its fragile and unique ecosystem. As such, it represents a step in the right direction.

Leonard Preyra is the Member of the Legislature for Halifax Citadel – Sable Island. He can be contacted by email at preyra@eastlink.ca or by phone at 444-3238.

January 31, 2010: A very positive move

I'm a resident of Ontario and I have had a fascination with, and love for, Sable Island since I first read about it in a public school reader, some fifty years ago.
 
Throughout my life I have tried to keep abreast of Sable Island issues and I've written more than one letter to a politician, and the national newspapers, when I've been supportive of a planned initiative for Sable or, at other times, when I've been opposed to an initiative.
 
I firmly believe that the Memorandum Of Understanding signed by Ministers Prentice and MacDonell to establish a Federal Protected Area on Sable Island is a very positive move, and both the Federal and Provincial Governments should be commended for taking this first step.
 
It is only a first step, however, because much remains to be accomplished. Simply designating Sable Island to be a National Park does not in itself guarantee protection to its fragile ecosystems or the creatures who live there. Many activities are normally permitted in National Parks that would be totally-inappropriate for Sable, eg., unlimited visitors;  government partnering with private entrepreneurs to allow them to operate for-profit, revenue-generating businesses catering to tourists within the Park's boundaries, etc.
 
Regardless of whether Sable is designated a National Park, National Wildlife Area, or some other designation, the enacting legislation must ensure that Sable receives the same (or more) protection than it is currently-afforded, from devastation by the actions of Man, whether intentional or otherwise.
 
It is up to ALL of us, as Canadians concerned with Sable's future, to speak-out and ensure that adequate provisions are written-into legislation to restrict & prohibit any activities being conducted on Sable that have the potential to negatively-impact this fragile Island.
Larry Meikle, Ontario

January 29, 2010: Past and present tourism

Useful discussion of any “tourism” associated with a National Park designation for Sable must include an understanding of the past and present policies regarding tourism and its outcomes.

 

People have been visiting the island since the early 1900s. The numbers have been low, as they are now, because of the remote location, travel logistics, the expense, and the limitations of island resources and operational requirements.

 

Visitor access to Sable is restricted (i.e. conditional) not banned. People wanting to visit apply (by fax, email, or letter) to Coast Guard for permission, and the CCG authority assesses the request and usually checks with the Sable Station to ensure there are no operational conflicts.

 

Proposed visits are reviewed for potential negative impacts, such as too many people on the island or at the Station at one time, or interference with the vegetation or wildlife. As well, visitors must show they are properly supplied and equipped, have worked out the logistics and will not be a hazard or a burden. If no red flags are raised, the visitor is given permission and a copy of the Visitor Guidelines. Most visitors also receive a briefing when they arrive.

 

Thus for many visits—a few people having a walkabout, birders, artists wanting to observe and paint—there are not “many hoops”.

 

Visitor activities are monitored, and many visitors are accompanied by a guide.

 

Overall, the limited tourism has not had a negative impact on the island, and some people feel it has been a positive force. Individuals who have seen Sable first-hand have been able to share with others their enhanced appreciation of the island as well as their understanding of the critical role of the Station. Many have subsequently supported efforts to ensure that year-round environmental stewardship for Sable Island is maintained.

 

However, requests for access to Sable have increased during the past few years. This is due, in part, to the greater exposure the island received during the Station closure controversy (1994 to 2005), and to the numerous books and TV documentaries produced during the last ten years (e.g. the high-profile program Chasing Wild Horses about the New York photographer Roberto Dutesco).

 

Thus, no matter what the managing authority— National Wildlife Area, or National Park—policies regarding access will have to be reviewed. Given that low level visitation has not harmed Sable, there is no reason (thus far) that it should be prohibited in the future. However, visits to Sable must be controlled in both numbers of people and activities on the island, with environmental protection and conservation foremost and uncompromised.

 

These are some of the issues we should be discussing. We must not be distracted by rumours and excessive ‘devil’s advocacy’. More later…

Green Horse Society

January 29, 2010:  Regarding ship-based tourism

On October 7th 2009, the Polar Star anchored off the north beach, roughly north of the Sable Island Station. This is the “cruise” ship mentioned in recent comments about tourism.

 

See Mary Filbee’s comments, below. As Mary explains, the Polar Star is not a typical cruise ship, rather it is an expedition ship. Previous ship visits also involved this kind of specialized vessel (e.g. the Clipper Adventurer in September 2001).

 

The Polar Star passengers waited on the beach until all had been brought ashore, and then they were gathered together for an environmental briefing. The visitors were on the island for only about three hours. They were restricted to walking on the beach, and along the inland road that runs between the Station and West Light and out to the north and south beaches. They were not permitted to walk on any vegetated terrain no matter how sparse, and were not allowed to clamber up unvegetated slopes. They did not picnic on the island, and they did not use the Station facilities. Following their departure, the only evidence of the Polar Star’s visit was 100s of foot prints in the bare sand of the road and beach.

Green Horse Society

January 28, 2010: Protecting Sable Island’s Future 

I have watched with interest the recent media coverage of possible changing designations for Sable Island.

 

In the media there has been comment of a cruise ship visit this past fall. The passenger ship that visited was not a typical cruise ship. It was an expedition ship that has for years operated in environmentally sensitive areas with strict guidelines around the world. During the visit to Sable Island the passengers were restricted to the “roadways” and sandy beach areas only. They were informed of this onboard in the pre landing briefing, then again onshore by Zoe and they were monitored. The expedition operated with a 10:1 ratio of passengers to professional guides. This ship operates often in fragile (and sometimes restricted) areas year round, so this was not new to the operator.

 

The duration of the visit was only for the morning. Passengers were landed with Zodiacs (not typical larger cruise ship transfer vessels), no food or drink was permitted, approach to the animals was not allowed and of course no “facilities” were used ashore. The small ship had less than 100 passengers. The ship did have proper permission and worked with the Canadian Coast Guard, Zoe Lucas and Gerry Forbes to fully understand concerns and plan an environmentally responsible visit

 

It is important to note that there have been only a very few passenger ship visits ever! I believe this was the 5^th ship ever to actually land passengers. Others have been given permission, but Mother Nature intervened. I think the unpredictability of Mother Nature and the challenging conditions of Sable Island will be perhaps the most effective limiting factor in “commercial” interest as most tourism operations prefer to plan “a sure thing”. Dealing with tourists after the fact who did not get to the promised or hoped for highlight is a commercially negative experience.

 

I had the honour to participate in the expedition ship landing. I have read about and now seen firsthand the fragility of the environment. I do truly agree that this special island is sensitive. It is unique, it should be protected, I believe access needs to remain controlled/restricted and it should not succumb to pressures that might build over time to put infrastructure on shore to accommodate visitors needs/wants. I completely agree with the quote I read “We don’t want to love it to death”!

 

This ship conducts expeditions worldwide. Much of the year is spent in Polar Regions and from Nov-March the ship operates in Antarctica – also a fragile and important environment. As a company, it is a member of IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators) since 2000. There are a number of expedition and cruise ships that go to Antarctica. As Antarctica is claimed by many countries but definitively “owned” (or governed) by no one, this organization was created by the industry to establish a vehicle for self governing with the specific interests of human safety and the environment. It has worked closely with the Antarctic Treaty Nations (ATN) and is well respected.

 

While planning the future of Sable Island, Antarctica is an interesting study case – and there are others globally. Antarctica is also a very pristine and fragile environment. It also should be protected – and is. Through landing restrictions (numbers and time limits), site specific guidelines, wildlife interaction guidelines, scheduling, environmental fees and detailed reporting, the Antarctic expedition cruise industry has behaved in a responsible manner. These IAATO methods have recently been largely adopted by some Arctic nations and industry interests through creation of AECO (Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators) with similar guidelines. There are always challenges! In Antarctica, there are applications to establish permanent accommodation on shore and even wilder requests such as to ride a motorbike on the Seventh Continent! To date these have been prevented. The challenge in Antarctica is that there is no one government or authority that can manage and respond quickly as all ATN decisions must be by consensus which is typically a slow process.

 

The positive with Sable Island is that there is a government with proper authority. Perhaps now is the time when there is the political will to ensure the future protection of Sable Island. There are also several interest groups who can hopefully guide and give input – and there is public interest. The details, implications and pros and cons of each – status quo, National Park and wilderness habitat designation need to be thoroughly examined and understood. There are ways to minimize impact to only minor and transitory at a sensitive site such as Sable Island.

 

Sable Island, the natural habitat and its wildlife (including the now wild horses) must be protected. Possible future pressures to add infrastructure must be resisted. There should not be more accommodation, boardwalks, vehicles or facilities. Infrastructure on shore should be strictly limited to meeting the need for weather monitoring, research and emergency response – much as it is already today. Today the island is cared for and the current set up has worked well. Going forward, any visitors who do come should have to make an application process and the numbers should be restricted. Commercial interests should not be encouraged but self sufficient and responsible visitors should be allowed to visit – as they can (and must) have minor and transitory impact. If managed well and restricted as it is now, I do not think a ban is necessary. Examples of this include small yachts and yes, even the occasional expedition ship that infrequently seek permission to land – they require no on shore facilities as it is all provided for onboard and taken away. The overriding mandate for all activities should be protection of the island and its wild inhabitants, including the horses. It is very precious, not only to us and our children but also as a unique part of the world.

Mary Filbee

January 27, 2010: Awareness about Sable

Where do I begin? Sable Island has been in my thoughts, one way or another, ever since early childhood. In September, 2009, being 52 years of age, I had the opportunity to make a dream become a reality. I visited and photographed Sable Island and all of its amazing features. Five months later, I still have few words to describe this amazing experience. Should I want to deny others from such an experience? No. However, not being a scientist but one who simply appreciates Sable Island for what it is - A delicate ecosystem that must be closely monitored for preservation purposes - I fear that without a clear mandate to protect Sable Island's uniqueness few people may have the same opportunity as I.

 

Sitting here writing this I feel that I do not have anything more to offer that wouldn't duplicate what others have so nicely worded. I have this feeling in the pit of my stomach that what I experienced in September of last year could potentially be one of last times anyone has that unique experience. Whether it is a National Park or a Wildlife Park I would most certainly like to see  'protecting the delicate ecosystem' as a priority. If that means 'getting wrapped up in the seal' debate or 'the protection of the horses from human interference' controversy for the sake of education and awareness about Sable Island then so be it.

Randy Bullerwell, Halifax, NS

January 27, 2010.  The Status Quo is not an option.

Many people remember that the future of Sable Island has been 'up-in-the-air' since the early 1990's. Judging from some of the news coverage, I don't think it's clear what the options are for Sable Island.

 

1.  Sable Island has been managed by Coast Guard since 1867.  However, in 2003 it was announced that ongoing changes to Coast Guard's mandate meant Coast Guard would have a diminishing role with respect to Sable Island.  This has happened.

 

2.  With Coast Guard unable to continue to manage Sable, there are now three choices:

a. Sable Island becomes unmanaged and unprotected.

b. Sable Island becomes a National Park, managed by Parks Canada

c. Sable Island becomes a National Wildlife Area, managed by Environment Canada.

The status quo IS NOT AN OPTION.  This is what all the negotiations and discussion has been about!  Times and mandates have changed.  We need to focus on the future. 

Name withheld, Halifax

January 27, 2010. Interpreting the MOU

If I understand the MOU correctly,

- The end result of this process will result in Sable Island being designated a "Federal Protected Area"
- The Canada-Nova Scotia Task Group will consider the issues associated, and recommend Sable become either a National Park, or a Wildlife Area.
- Canada will consult the public on issues associated with the recommended designation.
- After the consultation, and after reviewing the issues identified, Canada and Nova Scotia will negotiate agreements and facilitate the designation

The development of a recommendation by a task group, followed by public consultation, seems to be a normal process for government action.  This was the same process used  by Environment Canada when they were looking towards Wildlife Area designation.  Also, clause 2.2 isn't specific that the two governments are constrained by the recommendation of the task group.

 

 I'm not convinced that there's anything wrong with this approach.

Name withheld, Halifax