LOOKING BACK 10 YEARS: Irving Fined for Destroying Heron Nests

J.D. Irving fined $60,000, pleads guilty to destroying heron nests.

Originally published Monday, 9:48 PM 2008 AT CBC News (Original deleted at CBC)

Photo from Wikipedia

Forestry giant J.D. Irving Ltd. was fined $60,000 after pleading guilty Monday to destroying a blue heron habitat in New Brunswick two years ago.

 Charges were laid against J.D. Irving in 2006 for violating the Migratory Birds Convention Act by destroying a blue heron colony near Cambridge Narrows on company property, about 80 kilometres north of Saint John. The company was building a logging road in the area where eight nests were destroyed, the court was told.  J.D. Irving was charged with disrupting the nesting colony and had originally pleaded not guilty. Judge Patricia Cumming in Burton, N.B., court handed down a $60,000 penalty — a $10,000 fine and a $50,000 contribution to Bird Studies Canada, a non-profit conservation group.  

J.D. Irving spokeswoman Mary Keith said the company decided not to fight the charge once it was decided there was going to be an allocation made to Bird Studies Canada, a group the company has had a long-standing relationship with. "Understanding that and the fact that we were likely looking at a long and protracted legal case, we made the decision to proceed with the settlement that was determined in court today," Keith said.

As well, the company cannot log in the area for five years. "I make no finding of negligence … or that this was done intentionally," Cumming said when delivering the fine. She said it was fortunate that the colony, which appears to have re-established itself, is thriving. 

Rockweed: Lawsuit news alert

Rockweed News alert 28 FEB 2017 Legal case update! DMR Commissioner speaks! Rockweed legal case: oral arguments scheduled Ross et al. vs Acadian Seaplants Members of the public may attend. - March 2, 9:00 to 9:40 am - Washington County Superior Court, 85 Court St., Machias Commissioner Keliher, Maine DMR, on what DMR will do if a landowner contacts DMR about unwanted rockweed harvesting: click photo for VIDEO. OTHER VIDEO: 1. Landowner complaints about a very old and loud rockweed machine. Aug. 11, 2016; Harpswell, ME. 2. Rockweed harvester machine, August 2016, Harpswell, ME -->

Aerials of LNG Protest St. Andrews Wharf

Tim Foulkes wrote:

That's a great video. I kept looking for a shot of that annoying little airplane that was trying to stay legal above the crowd, shooting pics from another perspective. First one is mine, the second one is Jeff Irving's, two of many.

Tim

More Quarry Questions

Here are few more questions that beg answers in addition to those in Art MacKay's list of Quarry Questions. (Courier article, Feb. 17). This is also in response to Jamer's assurance that their project "will have no impact on the water quality of Chamcook Lake"

If the local people allow their Rural Plan to be changed so that foreign aggregate companies like Vulcan Materials can devastate their landscape with mega quarries, Jamer Materials, the quarry operator, will still have to move the watershed boundary which runs over the top of the hill they plan to mine in order to prevent flow from it into the Chamcook Lake watershed. This may not be a problem for Vulcan Materials who are used to (re)moving mountains, but what if berms to redirect this flow fail, as has happened with other Vulcan quarries, or blasting opens a rift in the bedrock, as apparently happened (April, 2007) with Jamer's operation at the Port of Bayside? Vulcan has had problems at other quarries, (Google: Vulcan Quarry Violations), e.g.

http://www.blackwarriorriver.org/releases/2004_PressRelease_VulcanBessemerQuarryNOIS_Aug4.pdf

There is obviously at least some risk that something will go wrong with berms or blasting. To deny this seems either naive or dishonest. Is any risk to St Andrews' water supply acceptable? Is it the right thing to do, even if it is legal and one “expert” says it’s safe?

If the berms do hold over the next century or more and no rifts are opened toward Chamcook Lake by the blasting, runoff will be contained on the "other" side of the watershed boundary as planned. This means it will flow into the St Croix estuary, or am I missing something? This is not a black and white question of who’s expert is right. It is a black and black question. In other words, it is a lose-lose situation for the environment.

Has the toxic effects of this "planned" runoff into the St Croix estuary been considered? ... More ...