Fishermen and Friends of the Sea (FFOS) commend the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) and the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) on their swift response to the dead fish in the contaminated "Red Zone" of the south-west peninsula, but there are still many unanswered questions.
In December 2013, after the massive oil spills, Petrotrin created an out-of-bounds restricted area officially known as the "Red Zone." For several months this area remained closed while literally millions of marine animals washed ashore daily, most of which had lesions similar to the fish seen today. What determined the lifting of this fishing ban in the Petrotrin prohibited Red Zone area? Can the public view the technical advice/report which guided Petrotrin to lift the ban? It appears that the IMA, EMA and Petrotrin are playing hide-and-seek with the public's health.
The most recent IMA/EMA media release states that samples were collected in Mosquito Creek, which is about half-a-mile north of the Red Zone. Why did the IMA and EMA not travel further south to the Carrot Shed Beach in La Brea, where large quantities of flipper dolphins, pelicans, corbeaux, stray dogs and commercial fish continue to wash ashore daily? Is the carnage in the Red Zone the source of these Mosquito Creek fish? Why are the fish washing ashore dead and dying only in the Petrotrin Red Zone and nowhere else?
According to the IMA, an overwhelming majority of the dead fish was composed of a single species of herring. This is being disputed by primary stakeholders, news reports, eyewitness testimony, photos and videos. How exactly did the IMA come by their 99 per cent herring composition? What was their sample size? Was sampling done at multiple points? Why was the Petrotrin Red Zone alongside the Aripero River not visited also? There are serious credibility issues that arise here.
The IMA and EMA joint press release also reported that "herrings appeared to have bruises" and "in some cases these red marks were accompanied by net impressions or markings." Almost all of the dying and/or dead creatures which FFOS have recorded over the past three years in the Petrotrin prohibited Red Zone area have red blotches or lesions under their skin. From our readings of reports emanating from the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster, red marks/lesions/blotches under the skin/scales is one of the symptom marks of Corexit 9500 exposure.
Can the IMA/EMA explain why fisherfolk would discard millions of dollars of commercial fish? A fleet of boats would be needed to dump this massive quantity of dead fish all at the same time, in the exact same place! What possible motivation could we have to dump millions of dollars of fish? Why would several boats dump their hard-earned catch and forego on hard-earned income? This is simply illogical.
FFOS has over the years highlighted sick and dying fish washing ashore in the Red Zone from Otaheiti to Point Fortin. The IMA and EMA have ignored our numerous notifications, misplaced our samples, and not responded to our photographic and video evidence of dying fish washing ashore. Is there a cover-up taking place here?
The IMA and EMA state that "there is no visible evidence of an oil spill in the area." We have shown over and over that the Corexit mixed with the hydrocarbon is still visibly lodged in the mangrove, on the seabed and under the sand. Petrotrin, the IMA and the EMA all have the same employer and are not independent. Therefore who is protecting us?
FFOS calls on our Honourable Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley. The Petrotrin 2013 oil spill/Corexit disaster continues to cripple our communities and an independent investigation should occur as a national priority. Our coastal communities are suffering and if our stakeholders cannot sell these sick fish, then how will they feed their families?
Terrence Beddoe, president
Cecil Mc Lean, vice president
Gary Aboud, corporate secretary
Fishermen and Friends of the Sea