Fish farming and diving tourism

Once again Robert Aquilina tries to imply (October 16) that his fish farms are not responsible for the environmental damage of the seabed and the area around St Paul's islands and that it does not affect diving tourism. He does this by insinuating that I am misinformed and am making myself look ridiculous.

It is Mr Aquilina who is making himself look ridiculous, because:

a) he failed to read my letter (October 4) properly and realise that The Times had inadvertently used the wrong photo caption;

b) he proves my point with one of his own pictures; and

c) of his recent actions after he saw my pictures.

Had Mr Aquilina read my letter he would have seen that I wrote: "The bad state of the two nets I photographed and the bottom sediment and rubbish (abandoned pieces of mooring ropes from the farm nets) directly under them can clearly be seen as can also be seen that the sediment covering the sea grass on the nearby reef is the same as that directly under the farms".

I clearly stated that the abandoned ropes are under the nets. I was not misleading anyone and it was The Times that inadvertently used the caption that should have gone with another picture I had also passed on to them. This photo is being printed with this letter (above).

Mr Aquilina showed us a photo of the nets but he did not give us a close up like I did as that would have shown the same results as mine. He commented that the growth on the nets is natural and is the same as that which grows on moorings and boats. He is wrong. I am experienced enough to know the difference between natural marine growths and the brown faeces (to use a polite word) of his fish.

Again in his letter, Mr Aquilina blames the weather conditions, the farmed valleys, the topography of the bay, the sewage (wow, what a nice place where to farm healthy fish!) etc... but not his fish farms and refers to surveys and reports that were done ages ago. What about having some real surveys now by an independent entity commissioned by the government and not by Mr Aquilina's company?

He actually claims in his letter that "several independent benthic surveys carried out on our sites indicate that there is an impact on flora and fauna directly beneath the cages". So I am right! There is an impact on the area!

Mr Aquilina also states that the area where the farms are, around St Paul's Islands, was never a dive site and that the bronze (and not concrete, as he wrongly states) statue of Christ was not put there for divers. I know that the statue was put there to mark the Pope's visit but who was going to see it underwater - his fish? Why put it underwater if not to be seen by divers and the underwater safari boats?

Mr Aquilina blames everything for the damage but not his company and he keeps insisting that these are only my own misleading opinions. Let me just remind him that others have commented about the same issues and the fact that the government wants to relocate all fish farms in one area further out at sea just proves me right.

Finally, if my photographs and my comments were misleading, why has he now served me with a judicial letter (judicial act 3538) holding me responsible for damages his company may suffer because I dived under his nets without a permit?