Fish farm com­pany needs re­al­ity check

The Oban Times - - Letters -

Sir, Your ar­ti­cle headed ‘3,000 sign Sound of Jura fish farm pe­ti­tion’ ( The Oban

Times, May 11) ended with Kames Fish Farm­ing’s re­ac­tion to the many and sub­stan­tial grounds of ob­jec­tion to its pro­posal.

It is much to be hoped that Kames will recog­nise the weight of op­po­si­tion and adopt the ap­proach of one of its com­peti­tors, Marine Har­vest Ltd, Scot­land’s largest pro­ducer of farmed salmon, which now recog­nises that there are ‘sen­si­tive sites’ and, as re­ported on BBC Coun­try­file, says that it is ‘open to look­ing at re­lo­ca­tion of sen­si­tive sites into less sen­si­tive sites’.

Kames’ own as­sess­ment of the site recog­nised that this is a land­scape whose ‘sen­si­tiv­ity is high due to value (des­ig­na­tion) and lack of de­vel­op­ment/ ac­tiv­ity; re­mote­ness, tran­quil­lity and visual ex­po­sure from sea­ward’.

This be­ing so, Kames must ac­cept that there is a heavy bur­den on it to iden­tify the im­pacts of its pro­posal and how the im­pacts could pos­si­bly be ac­cept­able.

Your re­port of Kames’ re­ac­tion shows it tak­ing al­to­gether too nar­row an ap­proach to the ev­i­dence it has to pro­duce. It has to go much fur­ther than merely of­fer­ing ‘con­sid­er­a­tion’. Un­less Kames ad­duces a com­pelling sci­en­tific case show­ing that there will be no or min­i­mal dam­age, its pro­posal should be withdrawn and re­lo­cated to an area where it will do no dam­age. David Furze, Dounie House, Salen Mor Bay.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.