Finally - a concession!

[Little Hawk]

Received this from Alex. Some good news for a change!


Hello

Marine Harvest has now filed their Appeal from the BC Supreme Court decision of
Mr. Justice Hinkson and they conceded the main issues in our case – that
Provincial regulation of fish farms is unconstitutional! Thank you to all who
made this happen, there are not many success stories in this saga. Please go to
*“updates”* at www.adopt-a-fry.org for more information.

The Province has no mandate to protect wild fish and this is the crux of the
mismanagement that both the industry and the rest of us in BC have faced for 20
years. The farms are now sited in the wrong places, ensuring social conflict and
degradation of our wild salmon. To fix this the industry will have to down-size
at the very least and be removed from the crucial wild salmon migration routes.
Federal Fisheries Minister, the Honourable Gail Shea, will need all the support
we can give her to deal with this monumental mess that she inherited. Please do
what you can to let people know about our letter in case they want to sign.

In response to all of you who have written asking “what can I do” I have posted
a new page on our website *“Actions.”* Please go there if you can and consider
the very important request by my colleague Michelle Young, who grew up in the
Broughton Archipelago before fish farms and knows personally what is at stake.
Two gigantic fish farms are attempting re-zoning right on Johnstone Strait,
guaranteeing all wild salmon that travel that route will be traveling through
fish farm effluent. Given what we know now if these two farms go in we can know
wild salmon are no long a priority in BC waters.

Thank you all for your hundreds of messages and best of all your great ideas!

alex

 

[sockeyefry]

Morton,

You don't have a clue regarding what you think you have won do you?

The feds always did hold the control over fish farms. The provinces, yes provinces, (as MOU's are in place all across the country. In fact the first one was done in NS in 1985 - 86) oversee the adminitration of aquaculture. The Feds through DFO and other federal dept. always held the big stick. In other words, aquaculture has developed with the blessing of the Feds, and not the provinces.

Fish farmers do not want DFO regulating their industry. The feel that DFO is in a conflict of interest position as developer and regulator. As regulator they cannot do a proper job of developer. Since they are farms, aquaculture should be in Ag Canada.

What you have done is got them to reexamine their placement of aquaculture file within the fed gov. structure. Maybe you will be getting for the farmers what they have long tried to get. Maybe we should actually thank you in succeeding where we could not.

The industry will not be downsized as you suggest, the legislation will be fixed. So much for that victory????

Oh yeah, BTW the Fraser Sockeye run will be larger this year. OOPS so much for that "extinction due to sea lice" BS you spread. I thought you were going to stop your anti farm crusade if the Broughton pinks did not become extinct back in 05. OOPS they didn't become extinct. So much for your predictions. Now live up to your word and shove off.

 

[Last Chance]

She was going to quit if they didn't become extinct in 2005?

Last Chance Fishing Adventures

www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

The feds always did hold the control over fish farms. The provinces, yes provinces, (as MOU's are in place all across the country. In fact the first one was done in NS in 1985 - 86) oversee the adminitration of aquaculture. The Feds through DFO and other federal dept. always held the big stick. In other words, aquaculture has developed with the blessing of the Feds, and not the provinces.

NOT true, sf.

Since Confederation, the feds have always looked after navigable waters (coast guard), pollution of waters and releases of deleterious substances (Env, Can), and wild fish and wild fish habitat (DFO) - while the provinces have been responsible for managing tenures and licensing the selling of aquaculture product through the property act, and the acts of constitution - after each province joined constitution. The first provinces to make the "original" Canada were Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick - and sometime after 1867, the other provinces joined Canada. BC joined Confederation in 1871.

Since then, some provinces have also been given additional powers (e.g. BC, NB, NS, NFLD, Manitoba, etc) through various MOUs signed with the feds (i.e. DFO) - sometimes with the MOUs legally mandated, and sometimes not (as the judge ruled in Morton's recent court case).

Sometimes these MOUs have given the provinces jurisdiction over non-tidal (i.e. inland) recreational fisheries; sometimes (as in the case of BC) over tidal aquaculture.

In addition, both the feds and the provinces also promote aquaculture.

So, aquaculture has developed with the blessing and support of both provincial and federal governments - and in BC - the province took over something they should not have since they were not federally mandated to do, and subsequently got caught years later by Morton. And Morton was correct in stating that the Province had no mandate to protect wild fish, but was regulating an industry that impacted that resource.

BUT, your point is valid - that power of regulation of the aquaculture has now been left to a federal department that also took on itself (w/o cabinet or federal approval or law) the promotion of aquaculture under the reign of Bastion - and already discussed at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8847

A wholly disagreeable situation, since we know how well that twin promotion/regulation responsibility works after watching the plays by the provincial regulators in BC.

So, what now? How do we get out of this pickle?

 

[sockeyefry]

Agetn

I would say give the aqua file to Ag Canada and leave DFO to do its fisheries mandate.

Yes she is right about the mandate to protect wild fish being a fed responsibility. however every aquaculture tenure has the blessing of about a dozen gov. agencies including DFO which has the "big Stick" to stop any development on fishery grounds. BC did have a MOU on Aquaculture licensing and development, However they could only exercise this right under the MOU if the DFO and the feds allowed them to. To say that something is different now is not entirely the case in practise, so the victory is of sorts a hollow one.

 

[Little Hawk]

Sockeye;

MOU's are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

[sockeyefry]

Now that Aquaculture is a fishery, it will enjoy the PROTECTION of the fisheries act, not the prohibition. It will be preserved by DFO just like any other fishery. And sections of the fishery act that deal with habitat destruction will not apply to the farms. They will however apply to activites such as logging, marine tourism, etc which may have an impact ont he farm site. Imagine some whale watcher reaction when they get charged under the fishery act and forced to pay compensation to a farm company.

For proof I point you to the fact that the fishery act protects such activities such as bottom trawling, even though it has been shoiwn to be destructive.

Oh boy Morton really won didn't she? Obviously she is as good at constitutional law as she is at being a "scientist"

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Now that Aquaculture is a fishery, it will enjoy the PROTECTION of the fisheries act, not the prohibition. It will be preserved by DFO just like any other fishery. And sections of the fishery act that deal with habitat destruction will not apply to the farms.

Careful, sockeyefry. Your interpretation is somewhat - lacking.

A license to prosecute a fishery under the fisheries act is analogous to a driver's license - it's a privilege given by the Fisheries Minister; not a right.

Yes, the act of prosecuting any aquaculture activity will enjoy the same "protection" as any fishery - which is protection for any licensee to pursue that activity as licensed under the of the terms of condition of license, as dictated by the fisheries minister - assuming that this fishery does not damage fish habitat.

At any time, the minister holds the power to:
1/ Determine whether the aquaculture licensee has in fact maintained the conditions of license,
2/ Whether or not that activity does not infringe upon other sections of the fisheries act; especially sections 35 and 36,
3/ Whether or not any person or company should be charged under the fisheries act. This is the minister's discretion to charge or not.

In practice, and in experience - the minister has decided to NOT charge certain fisheries, including the bottom trawl fishery (as sf has pointed-out).

So, we actually have no more and no less protection for wild stocks than we had before Morton's court case - in any event, not enough protection since the Minster's discretion seems to apply more stringently and often when his/her friends are concerned.

The protection for wild stocks (when it is used) is commonly called the "precautionary approach", and quite a number of fisheries have been "temporarily" suspended using this criteria (e.g. abalone, various gill-net & troll fisheries, etc.).

That protection is actually easier to apply once the fishery in question is licensed under the fishery act. One does not then have to prove "probable harm", but instead just close areas or times of the year to that fishery.

So, in this regard - it will be easier to regulate the aquaculture fishery, than other industries - and this is where your interpretation is incorrect, sockeyefry.

In fact, as a condition of license; the fisheries minister could demand timely and accurate lice "hails" by farm tenure be required by all license holders. This is something we currently do not have.

Another in-season management policy could be fallowing of all the open net-cages in the Broughton by the time of the spring smolt outmigration.

This area of conditions of license is where we need to next push the fishery minister.

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

When you speak of wild salmon in the broughton a commercial fishery for wild salmon is in conflict with the commercial fishery of aquaculture. Typically DFO has managed both conflicting fisheries for the benefit of both, sort of like the shrimp & herring fisheries vs the salmon and groundfish fisheries. It could be argued that the reduction in the available prey species through the directed fisheries were the causes of the decline of the salmon on the west coast or the cod on the east.

Typically DFO regulates fisheries for the benefit of the users. They restrict access through licensing, and restrictlicensees through conditions. Yes as you point out, the fed minister could put various conditions on licenses just like he does on com fish liscencees with restrictions on gear etc...

The problem with the decision by Hinks is that it will likely result in discussions between the feds and the provinces which will drag on to no one's benefit. Unfortunately Morton opened a can of worms which may not have the effect she desired, and in all liklihood will further entrench the right of aquaculture farms to exist.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

When you speak of wild salmon in the broughton a commercial fishery for wild salmon is in conflict with the commercial fishery of aquaculture.

not sure how you came to this conclusion, sockeyefry. How, please?

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

It could be argued that the reduction in the available prey species through the directed fisheries were the causes of the decline of the salmon on the west coast or the cod on the east.

Yes, this could be argued by someone with no knowledge of what salmon eat, and w/o very much basis in reality or science.

Salmon smolts eat for a 1-4 month period in the areas around fish farms and the nearshore commercial fishery (albeit at a different time of the year for most commercial fisheries, typically) on the way to their big swim to the Alaskan Gyre, and as returning spawning salmon, eat very little once they return nearby to their natal streams.

As smolts, they eat very small food items, mostly (in order of outmigration eating); freshwater cladocerans, then Calanoid copepods and oikopleuran larvaceans, then oikopleurans and barnacle cyprids, and finally then small forage fish by the time they leave the nearshore areas.

None of these very small food items are part of commercial fisheries, and instead it could be argued that some of the commercial fisheries (i.e. herring) remove some competition for these food items by other fishes besides salmon smolts; while other commercial fisheries remove larger salmon predators (e.g. lingcod, hake, etc.) - thereby helping wild salmon stocks.

Commercial salmon fisheries and commercial recreational salmon fisheries do reduce the overall number of returning adult salmon, of course - but do institutionalize a monetary and social value to that resource; as well as provide a "first alert" warning system to interannual changes to that salmon resource (e.g. the 1st sea lice reports on pink salmon in the Broughton came from a sportsfishermen, etc.).

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

The problem with the decision by Hinks is that it will likely result in discussions between the feds and the provinces which will drag on to no one's benefit. Unfortunately Morton opened a can of worms which may not have the effect she desired, and in all liklihood will further entrench the right of aquaculture farms to exist.

I agree with you on this point, except; remember that a fishery is a privilege, not a right - this includes the aquaculture industry.

 

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:I agree with you on this point, except; remember that a fishery is a privilege, not a right

Present company Excluded...[8D]


Take only what you need.

 

[Striper Sniper]

LOL, good one FA, hard to get one past you. SS

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

I was simply illustrating that there would be a conflict for DFO managing the wild salmon fishery and the aquaculture fishery.

By example I was pointing out that there are fisheries which target food sources for larger commercial fish Further indicating how DFO would be in conflict.

Yes it is a privilege.

 

[cliffjumper]

Pulleese!... I have been on this site for a such a short time and while grateful there's a "conservation" board, it is well & truly hijacked by a bunch who's only goal seems to rip, tear and drag my money out of my tax-pocket to continuously cost millions in court-costs... tax-payor-funded. When I think of the good things that money could do rather than go to feed lawyers and government officials, and keep extremists full of importance, it makes me puke.

A: Good initial points made, understood and accepted by most sentient beings... waste disposal, lice, escapement resulting from seals and cheapskate operators are all a sincere problem.

B: Operators want to and must make a profit on their expenditure & investment or they may as well invest in GIC's

C: Gum-flappers need some issue to flap about or they feel unfullfilled, or maybe they're just not employed by their organization. Regulators seem to genuinely believe regulation will help them achieve their personal goals of power and complete control over the lives & thoughts of others... well... bug----off!

D: If both sides actually worked together without vitriol to create a real solution, instead of standing across the great divide screaming invective at each other, a simple and effectiuve solution would come to fruition without over-regulation and the terrible expense both sides foist on society.

E: Quit spending money on lawyers and build a bunch of GDF'n concrete tanks, areate, filter and feed your fish, and feed the world, and mitigate the need for commercial overharvesting (not intended as a personal dig to anyone... Canada & the US and maybe a couple small euro nations "might" be "slightly" less guilty than... for example Euro/Arab/African/Asian Tuna fishers or prawn-net earth-scrapers, but then, east coast cod comes to mind...), and allow some respite for natural stocks to re-build on their own.

The solution seems stupidly simple to me, but then... what would some of you talk about as your next burning issue?.. Sea Kittens???

Bah!

 

[Little Hawk]

CJ;

Some come here because they are passionate about issues and are thankful there's a forum (medium) to communicate with others with on a given subject. Many, myself among them, don't make a red-nickle consequent of their involvement in a particular initiative or cause.

Then there are others, who, after stumbling upon a particular thread - idle for 2-wks and on the cusp of fading into cyberspace obscurity - take some pleasure in 'stirring-the-pot' to see what reactions surface.

I'm curious; in which camp do you pitch your tent?

 

[cliffjumper]

In answer to that, I'm a reasonably good facsimilie of a political agnostic, never having read, seen, heard any argument from an proponent which fully fits my perspective. I further abhor "oppositional politics", but love true, honest democracy, free of special-interest whinning & snivelling, sophistry and lies (or at best, contrivances).

There's always a sound, simple, relatively economical solution to be illuminated by pragmatic minds, and delivered by practical people who are freed from ambivalent political self-interest.

I'll illustrate with a paraphrased story, alleged to be true, but really, who cares if it isn't?
...

A high-end members-only golf & country club was continually having theft problems in the locker rooms. Expensive litre bottles of shampoo & conditioner were dissappearing almost as quickly as put in the shower rooms. As members insisted on high-end care & grooming products, the cost of the thefts amounted to thousands monthly.

The new incoming president & executive committe tried several strong-armed tactics, but between broken dispensers, members' aggregate rudeness and the idea of video surveillance roundely decried, they failed at a cost of many thousand more dollars.

These and past executive committee members were not fools. They were successful and well educated in the professions and in business, and applied many proven business strategems to the problem. The president was the senior partner of a major accounting firm.... And, there he sat one day, on a bench in the locker room, feeling beaten by a silly, expensive, minor problem.. that of many members' petty thefts, and every club member could afford many cases of said hair products for their homes without noticing the expense.

The janitor came as he was miserably ruminating the problem, and asked "what's bugging you boss?".. The answer was scoffed at...

Shucks, if you really want to solve that problem why didn't you ask me years ago?

Huh?

That's easy... When I put new ones in the shower, I'll just throw away the bottle caps.
...

The moral, if any, is there are always simple, highly-effective solutions to problems blown out of proportion when acadaemia loses sight of the real world, and the media, useful idiots they may be, foments hysteria among the masses of voters who, forced to remain ignorant due to the vacancy of intelligent discussion, really only want to do work well, get paid well-enough, eat well in a secure, warm, comfortable home with a loving, best friend spouse & kids, and get their vacation of relaxing good times, retiring with a minimum of financial strain and concern. Why they read daily newspapers or watch TV news is a mystery to me, but then we also want to appear informed and at least modestly intelligent among our peer group.

Did that answer the question?

Cheers!