fish farm siting criteria & politics

Alexandra Morton's - Get Out Migration !

Come join our epic coastal walk and rally. Bringing communities together in a spring migration to remember.
A message of solidarity to protect our wild salmon from the Norwegian Salmon Farming Industry.
The movement is inspired in part by Gandhi's march and slogan, " We must be the change we want to see."
We have folks walking in from the coast and the interior of BC to merge as one in Victoria !!

Our website www.salmonaresacred.org <http://www.salmonaresacred.org> pass it on and sign the petition !
Itinerary for 'The Get Out Migration' . http://www.salmonaresacred.org/blog/press-release-march-2310-get-out-wild-salmon

22nd April - Broughton Archipelago/Alert Bay/Sointula
23rd April - Port Hardy/Port McNeill
24th April - Nimpkish Lake
25th April - Zeballos Junction
26th April - Woss
27th April - Sayward
28th April - Quadra Island
29th April - Campbell River/Courtenay/Comox
30th April - Big Qualicum River/Parksville
1st May - Port Alberni
2nd May - Nanaimo
3rd May - Ladysmith/Saltspring Island
4th May - Saltspring Island
5th May - Duncan
6th May - Bamberton
7th May - Sidney/Saanich
8th May - Victoria
9th May - Victoria

Please let us know if you can help us or would like us to visit you along the way.
Get Out Migration ! Quadra Island Rally Coordinator, Leanne Hodges
250-285-3152 or westcst1@telus.net
 
The Epoch Times/Before It's News, 25th March 2010

Sea Lice Issue Invades Legal Briefing

By Matthew Little
PARLIAMENT HILL, Ottawa—Sea lice made their presence felt during what was supposed to be a briefing about a Supreme Court decision on aquaculture to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on Monday.

That decision, handed down by the B.C. Supreme Court in February 2009, turned aquaculture regulations in British Columbia into paper mache by ruling that the provincial government did not have legal authority to regulate ocean finfish aquaculture.

Finfish aquaculture has been a hot issue in B.C. ever since reports started coming out that the practice of raising fish such as salmon in netted farms along the coast was possibly killing off wild stocks in the region.

Farmed animals are more apt to spread disease and parasites due to the close living quarters and research continues into the impact farmed fish have on wild stocks. Some researchers and critics—including Alexandra Morton whose constitutional challenge brought about the ruling—allege that sea lice proliferate in fish farms and then spread to wild fish as they swim past, killing off stocks.

With the federal government set to take over regulating aquaculture in B.C., the issue of sea lice has come under closer scrutiny by parliamentarians.

Trevor Swerdfager, a Director General at Fisheries and Aquaculture Management came to Parliament Hill to tell the committee how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) was preparing to take on its new responsibilities.

But when it came time for questions, there were as many about sea lice as there were about budgets and staffing.

Conservative MP John Weston and Liberal MP Keith Martin, both representing ridings in B.C., asked questions about the issue, as well as several others. Those questions represent the interests of constituents concerned that fish farming is damaging the ecosystem for coastal fish.

The department is currently restricted from issuing any new fish farm licenses or expansions until it takes full responsibility for regulating them in conjunction with the province of British Columbia, which retains some responsibilities. DFO is carrying out consultations and collecting data in preparation for drafting regulations so it can complete the take over by its court-mandated deadline of December 18 this year. Swerdfager said they already have some staff hired to work on the regulations.

Ecojustice, working on behalf of Living Oceans Society, threatened DFO with a lawsuit when it approved an expansion of a salmon farm near Port Hardy because it had not conducted a new environmental assessment. Earlier this month, the department conceded and announced that an environmental assessment will be done.

Swerdfager said DFO hopes to address concerns about fish farming by making information about the sector much more transparent. He also said the department would be ramping up research on sea lice.

While it is possible that other environmental groups could challenge provincial fish farming regulations in other parts of the country, he said the department is currently focusing on getting ready to assume responsibility for B.C. and not looking elsewhere. It is likely if such a challenge were to take place in other provinces that the B.C. ruling would be used as a precedent to strike down existing aquaculture regulations there.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/32061/

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/27683/Sea_Lice_Issue_Invades_Legal_Briefing.html
 
Critics Challenge Health Of Canadian Salmon Industry

George T. Baker

PRINCE RUPERT, B.C. — Federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea went to Boston to extol the virtues of Canadian seafood, but critics of salmon farms say they don't know how she could call the practice safe.

A news release issued by the Fisheries Department before Shea's trip to the annual International Boston Seafood Show said would promote Canada as "a leader in the production of high-quality, safe and nutritious fish and seafood."

"The stability, predictability, and innovation of Canada's fish and seafood sector are key elements that are helping our businesses remain profitable and competitive, while providing thousands of Canadians with jobs," Shea said in the release.

Des Nobles, a former fisherman and spokesman for the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, which advocates the environment and the protection of fish habitat, said the word "healthy" is misleading when it comes to salmon farms.

"If you look closely at the B.C. salmon farming industry and the issues surrounding the industry, I would suggest that it is anything but healthy," he said.

Open-net salmon farms remain controversial largely because sea lice found on the fish can impact wild salmon stocks.

According to the Fisheries Department's news release, Shea met with Canadian exporters and U.S. importers of Canadian fish and seafood products to discuss market-related issues and the methods used in Canada to sustainably harvest and farm fish and seafood resources.

Figures from the Fisheries Department show Canada's seafood exports topped $3.6 billion in 2009.

Two-thirds of the exports, or $2.3 billion worth, were destined for the United States while the European Union imported more than $416 million in seafood and Japan imported $264 million of the products.

According to the BC Salmon Farmers Association, the province's salmon farm exports were valued at $330.9 million for the 50,000 tonnes of Atlantic salmon sent to the U.S., the European Union and Japan.

"We're proud of the economic benefit our salmon farms have for local communities, the province and the nation," said Mary Ellen Walling, the association's executive director.

"We've developed a sustainable industry by balancing the environment, community and economy. To be truly sustainable, businesses have to be accountable to future generations on all three of those principles. And we are."

Conrad Lewis, one of the Kitkatla First Nation's most vocal opponents of fish farms, didn't agree with Walling's view.

"I would say the opposite," he said.

"The reason I would say the opposite of that is if our government - the Premier of British Columbia, Fisheries and Oceans Canada - if they even did two-thirds of what they do for fish farms for wild salmon, I think you would see our wild salmon stocks on the upswing rather than dwindling."

According to that report, the wholesale value of the year's cultured salmon harvest - both Pacific and Atlantic - was $495.2 million, making it the province's "single-most significant commodity."

Such reports, however, aren't likely to be welcomed on the north coast of B.C.

A moratorium on open net fish farms has been in place for two years.

Some pilot projects are looking at closed-containment nets to see if that is a viable way of running fish farms.

In her statement, Shea seemed to play down concerns about fish farming.

"Consumers around the world can be confident that Canadian products are also sustainable, harvested and farmed according to rigorous environmental monitoring and management regulations," she said.

But Nobles and his group disagree with that assessment.

The T. Buck Suzuki Foundation recently won a court order for a Freedom of Information request for information regarding sea lice infestation at B.C. salmon farms.

In a March 1 order, B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner said the Agriculture Ministry could no longer conceal records of sea lice infestations, based on information gathered during visits to salmon farms.

Now the question, said Nobles, is when the group will receive the information.

"To be perfectly honest, although the ruling was in our favour, that still doesn't ensure that the information will be received in a timely fashion," he said.

"There are still a number of things that the government can do to make it awkward to say the least. And in the end, who really is enforcing this? A court order is a court order - that is a wonderful thing. But who will enforce it?"

http://www.foodmanufacturing.com/scripts/ShowPR~RID~14925.asp
 
The Courier Islander/Global, 1st April 2010

Becherer's attack on Morton not warranted

In Response to Eric Becherer "Cameron, Morton a dangerous duo"

I would like to clear up a few misconceptions. It bothers me to see people attacking the very woman who has the commitment and passion to stand up for our wild fish- Alex Morton. I, and many others are deeply grateful for who she is and her work. SFU did not grant Alex an honorary PHD for "pseudo-science". Alex lives and breathes coastal biology. In the several months that I accompanied her during her research she was on the water from first thing in the morning till dusk looking for fry, netting them, counting lice, watching the currents and the farms- day in and day out She has done this for decades now. There is no one else in BC who has her depth of knowledge about the ecosystem in the Broughton Archipelago.

Alex is not receiving big funding- she gets small donations mostly from private individuals, which she puts straight into research or legal fees. She has little interest in money. She lives in a teeny, rustic cabin and likes it that way. Her motivation is simple- she deeply loves the coast and this is what gives her the energy to do what she does. In fact she resents that fact she has to waste years of her life dogging these irresponsible corporations and the department of fisheries. But what else do you do when you can see clearly that what you love most is being destroyed?

The fact that people still try to dispute the science on the issue of lice and disease from salmon farms decimating wild salmon astounds me. When Alex says, "the science has been done" she means that it has been proven over and over again, study after study- to no avail.

Alex is not the only one publishing science on this issue, far from it. There are many other independent scientists (i.e. not employed by govt or industry) who have come to similar conclusions in their research. In fact, the only scientists who don't agree large farms are impact wild fish are those working for the salmon farming industry or DFO (who unfortunately also works for industry). In fact the independent scientific community is pretty much unanimous in their understanding that industrial salmon farming eventually decimates local wild fish- whether in Scotland, Ireland, Norway or BC. You show me one scientist who doesn't acknowledge this and I'll show you their link to industry.

Perhaps what the public doesn't understand is that there are varying levels of quality and integrity when it comes to "science"- and yes, even science can be corrupt. So how does one tell good, solid science from "pseudo-science?". Well, good science should be published and peer reviewed in a journal that is respected within the scientific community. There are all sorts of journals (also of varying levels) that papers can be published in. The most difficult journals to get published in are ones like "Science" or "Nature", as these are the most respected journals in the world. The vast majority of scientists will never dream of getting their work published in these journals; it is an extremely rigorous review process, denying thousands of submissions.

Only the very best science in the world stands a chance of being published there. For example, in Dec 2007 Martin Krkosek, PhD and Morton had their research published in the journal "Science" outlining the future collapse of wild salmon in BC in the near future due to sea lice, and yet DFO, government and industry tried to call it pseudo-science.

Totally ridiculous, yes, but they count on the public not knowing any better. If research published in the world's top scientific journals does not constitute evidence then I don't know what does.

DFO knows full well the impacts of lice and disease from farms on our wild fish. I often wonder how they sleep at night, but then I think maybe these guys are just caught in the wheels of an even bigger machine.

Whatever you hear from DFO on this issue- understand that that department has become a PR machine and support system for the salmon farming industry. Make no mistake - DFO no longer has the interest of wild salmon in mind. DFO is in a simple, obvious conflict of interest. On one hand they are the ones responsible for protecting wild salmon, while on the other hand, they are mandated to promote and expand salmon farming. Atlantic salmon is the new commercial species and so the fox is guarding the hen house. If we want wild fish, people are going to have to take matters into their own hands. We cannot trust multinational corporations (and those profiting from them) to do the right thing.

Wild salmon has intrinsic value beyond the viability of a commercial net fishery. It is a lynchpin of our whole coastal ecosystem that cannot be replaced. Yes people need jobs, but we can't trade those jobs for our vital coast, which is also a supplier of many jobs, not to mention our own local, natural, feed basket.

Twyla Roscovich

CallingfromtheCoast.com
http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/Becherer+attack+Morton+warranted/2755722/story.html
 
The Campbell River Mirror, 30th March 2010

Machiavellian corporate/government collusion

The Vancouver Sun (March 25) recently posted an item stating that a new system of Salmon Farming had been discovered allowing them to remain in salt water without wrecking the place. This is spectacularly good news ? If it proves to be true and if it can be implemented immediately.

In the meantime?

For those of you still unaware of who Alexandra Morton is, here is a brief rundown. Alexandra Morton has spent the last decade demonstrating in peer reviewed scientific journals and our courts of law the gross errors of management occurring in the BC Salmon Farming Industry. For her troubles, the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans once threatened her with criminal charges when she tried to move salmon smolts past the sea lice infested salmon farms of the Broughton Archipelago. All this and apparently it doesn’t even pay that well. Just google her and you’ll learn more.

The fact that Alexandra remains relatively unknown is puzzling. Perhaps our media has something to do with it. To think that everyone knows and seemingly cares what Tiger Woods is up to, yet the most amazing and sinister soap opera is occurring unnoticed under our noses is pretty hilarious – in a tragic comedy sort of way. And just so I am clear, this Machiavellian drama I refer to doesn’t involve fish so much as government and corporate collusion. A bit of a steamy and clandestine ***y affair, if you will, with the citizenry of B.C. getting a side role as the clueless hubby. But, hey, it’s just part of a long boring series called BC Politics. Remember the sale of BC Rail? Anyone?

The irony of one private individual (Alexandra Morton) doing the job our Department of Fisheries and Oceans is mandated with, yet refuses to do, should not be lost on anyone. Furthermore, what the generally good people in the DFO think about this we’ll never know due to the Harper government’s effective muzzling of all federally employed scientists. Fortunately, there are other sources of good, factual information on the subject, often from terrible mistakes occurring on other sides of the world – mistakes that we have had ample opportunity to learn from. The facts are clearly damning and our governments are complicit. Something to do with political campaign contributions perhaps. Again, just google it.

The big burning question I’d like an answer to is: will we the people raise an appropriate stink or will the fine Canadian tradition of “keep yer head down and yer nose clean” rule the day? Our wild salmon are not just iconic or economically valuable, but also act as our canary in the coal mine. The clock is ticking. At the very least anyone who has ever tossed a line needs to step up to the plate by informing your MP and MLA, Premier and Prime Ministers Office exactly what you think of their scandalous conduct in taking such huge and needless risks with our salmon.

For the more energetic, I urge you to sacrifice a little time and Join Alexandra on her march from Port McNeill to Victoria from April 23 to May 9. [Details via: www.salmonaresacred.org]

I repeat, anyone who calls themselves a fisherman in any way, shape or form should be mortally ashamed of themselves if they don’t at least enquire as to what the hell I am talking about and then proceed appropriately. And remember.... friends don’t let friends eat farmed salmon. Maybe if they ever get their act together we can change that. Unless we provide the incentive they won’t.

Bruce Kay

Whistler, B.C.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_north/campbellrivermirror/opinion/letters/89538287.html
 
Salmon farmers fighting back
Philip Round, Comox Valley Echo
Published: Friday, November 20, 2009

The case for farmed salmon was put to Comox Valley Regional District directors this week.

Vincent Erenst, the managing director of Marine Harvest Canada, had sought a direct audience of directors because he considered arguments in favour of the industry were not being heard.

Most stories in the press were coming from opponents of the industry, he contended, and the fish farms of Vancouver Island were not getting a fair hearing.

He said Marine Harvest, which is based in Campbell River, operated in six countries internationally.

On Vancouver Island and the B.C. coast, it had 41 operational fish farms and two processing plants - the biggest being at Port Hardy.

On and around the Island the company employed 550 workers - 80 of them living in the Comox Valley - and between them they helped produce 38,000 tonnes of fish product a year.

That generated sales of $220 million annually, 70 per cent of that sum being export trade to the U.S.

But their products were also sold and enjoyed locally, he added, through businesses such as Superstore in Courtenay.

The industry had been attacked over sea lice issues, but he said the issue was taken very seriously and was being tackled vigorously.

He claimed the incidence of sea lice at the company's farms had dropped dramatically over the past four years.

It was now at the point where, when taken as an average, only one fish in every 13 had a single sea lice on it.

At that level, sampling showed that there were more sea lice on salmon in the Skeena - where there were no fish farms - than on salmon in farms in the Broughton area, he contended.</u>

He acknowledged the industry needed to take additional steps to minimize any effect it had on wild salmon, and said it was working hard on further initiatives.

But he urged directors to recognize the importance of the industry in terms of jobs and trade to Vancouver Island, and its potential to grow further.

Regional district chair Fred Bates thanked Erenst for the presentation, but there was no discussion about the issue at Tuesday's meeting.
http://www2.canada.com/comoxvalleyecho/news/story.html?id=fab95a5b-a03b-4e2e-a6bf-eac5e0307c9b

© Comox Valley Echo 2009
 
The Courier-Islander, 31st March 2010

Grieg Seafood committed to growth, despite SRD change of direction

RE: Controversial fish farm site rezoning defeated, Courier-Islander, March 24, 2010

Grieg Seafood voluntarily proposed mitigation measures to address the public concerns that were raised at the first public hearing in 2009. In August last year, we submitted a draft authorization to the SRD containing the specific mitigation measures we planned to take to demonstrate our good faith to the community through this very thorough public consultation process. In short, we worked diligently to submit an application that supported the local economy while exceeding existing regulatory requirements.

Grieg has always and in fact continues to believe that local decisions are best made at the local level. This is why we have fully supported the SRD's public consultation process from the outset.

What is extremely unfortunate about this outcome is that by suddenly denying our rezoning and instead waiting for the transition of regulatory authority to the Federal government, there is actually a greater uncertainty that specific local concerns will be addressed on a case by case basis in the community.

Our commitment to supporting our coastal communities, like Sayward and Quadra Island, remains unchanged. We are still committed to growing our economic commitment to these communities, despite this sudden and un-warranted change in direction by the SRD.

We stand by our reputation and we will continue to stand by not only the communities in which we have made such critical economic investments, but also by the towns and individual workers that rely on our industry for income and tax dollars.

Peter Gibson,

Managing Director,

Grieg Seafood BC Ltd.

http://www2.canada.com/courierislan....html?id=c293773b-e7a7-4ea1-b206-6085ee676aeb
 
Marine Harvest tells city the good news

by Dan MacLennan, Courier-Islander
Published: Thursday, December 03, 2009

Saying Marine Harvest suffers from bad press, company officials attempted to set the record straight in a presentation to city council Tuesday.

“I think it can be said in general that salmon farming gets a lot of press attention in BC and also in Campbell River, and unfortunately for us the attention is not always very positive,” managing director Vincent Erenst told councillors. “Most of the news stories originate from our opponents or our critics and they are usually not positive.

“At Marine Harvest we believe that the public does not really get a fair view of what our industry actually is and the things that we are doing.” Erenst outlined that Marine Harvest, the largest Atlantic salmon farmer in the world, employs 550 people directly on the BC coast, roughly 200 of whom call Campbell River home.

Marine Harvest Canada managing director Vincent Erenst, right, and communications manager Ian Roberts spoke to Campbell River city council Tuesday night.

Globally, Marine Harvest will produce 322,000 tonnes of Atlantic salmon this year, Erenst said, roughly a quarter of global production, through operations in Norway, Canada, Scotland, Chile, Ireland and the Faroe Islands. He said the company produces 38,000 tonnes of fish annually in BC, enough to fill 1,900 trucks, for roughly $220 million in annual sales. Operations include six freshwater facilities from Duncan to Port Hardy producing brood stock and smolts, and processing plants in Port Hardy and Klemtu.

The company has 71 fish farming licences on the coast but only 41 salmon farms sites have been used in the last couple of years and no more than 30 are in production at any one time, while the other 10 sites are fallowed from two to six months. Marine Harvest Canada has a monthly payroll of $3 million and spends $10 million a month on goods and services, Erenst said, while the company has been investing $10 to $15 million per year on the Island.

“The last four years, from 2006 until now, have been profitable years for this company,” Erenst said. “They’ve been very good years in fact. They have allowed us to invest in our business, not so much in growth but in making our operations much more solid, more efficient, more robust and more environmentally sustainable.”

Major investments in the works include a new waste water treatment plant worth more than $3 million for their Port Hardy processing plant. More will go into Sayward. “Next year we will make a big investment in Sayward,” Erenst said. “We have a hatchery there which we will rebuild and make much more efficient in order to use less water and produce bigger and stronger smolts. That will be a five or six million dollar investment.”

There are social benefits as well. “We support the community in many ways,” he said. “I believe around 40 per cent of our $240,000 community support budget is actually spent in Campbell River.” As for the more contentious issues, Erenst acknowledged no lack of debate over the impacts of fish farms and sea lice on wild salmon stocks.

“Whatever the truth may be, I believe we can say that during the last five years we’ve worked very hard to minimize the amount of sea lice on our fish through a combination of good farming practices and treatment with a de-licing agent called Slice just before the out-migration season,” he said. He said DFO data shows the amount of sea lice per wild fish in the Broughton Archipelago has decreased from 2005 to 2008 and 2009.

It basically means that by 2008, only one sea lice was found on every 13th pink salmon fry. That number in 2008 and 2009 was lower than the amount found in the Skeena/Nass estuary where there are no salmon farms at all.</u> I believe we can say there’s been a very clear decrease of sea lice on wild salmon in the Broughton Archipelago.

If that really comes from our improved sea lice management or if there are other biological factors at work, we don’t know, but what is sure is that as of now, we’ve reached levels of lice on wild salmon in the Broughton that are lower or equal to natural background levels. So if there is an impact, in the case of the Broughton, this impact must be very small.”

He pointed to strong pink salmon returns in the Broughton area and elsewhere around the Island, saying they “prove that sea lice have not yet destroyed these stocks.” Erenst said Marine Harvest must work to continually increase the sustainability of fish farming. “For us this clearly means minimizing or eliminating completely the interaction of farmed salmon with wild salmon, minimizing the effect we have the sea bottom and the quality of the sea water, and minimizing the amount of marine ingredients in our feed.

I honestly believe that we’ve demonstrated over the last five years we have made lots of progress in this direction and it’s definitely our intention to continue to do so.” As for closed containment, Erenst said Marine Harvest has a small-scale pilot project waiting for funding assistance from the federal and provincial governments.

“So far we’ve not been able to convince either the feds or the province to support us in this,” he said. (See more in next Wednesday’s C-I).

photo credit – Dan MacLennan
-------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE (by Agentaqua): over the 3 years period 2004-2006, 4.33% (+/- 1.16%) of the pink smolts in the Skeena study (of all sizes) had 1+ louse of any stage found on them - or 1 in 23 fish, or HALF WHAT VINCENT STATED AS THE TRUTH.

In other words - vincent lied or BS'd w/o looking at the data.
http://www.skeenafisheries.ca/pub_Gottesfeld_etal_2009_sea_lice_transfer.pdf
http://www.skeenafisheries.ca/Publication_04-05_salmon_& Sea_lice_report.pdf
http://www.livingoceans.org/files/Maps_PDF/FF_sealice_on_juvenile_salmon_june2008.pdf
http://www.georgiastrait.org/files/share/08_04_sea_lice_discovery_isl_study.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19245630
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~mkrkosek/BC_etal_BioLett08.pdf
http://www.adopt-a-fry.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Rebuttal to Brooks.pdf
 
Vincent Erenst, (48) Managing Director Canada is from the Netherlands and is currently serving as Managing Director North America for Marine Harvest. He has vast aquaculture understanding coupled with wide international experience, most recently in Ecuador where he was Managing Director of Enaca, a large tilapia producer. Erenst has served as Managing Director in six different countries and has gained valuable experience in mergers and integrations as well as change management. He has a Bachelor degree in Biology and a Masters in Biology (Aquaculture and Fisheries) from State University in the Netherlands.
 
What does Alexandra Morton have to do to prove her case against fish farms?
Written by Rafe Mair

233826a67be66a810b23a263230da62e_M.jpg

Alexandra Morton addresses 600 citizens in Qualicum Beach, BC - January 2010

The plain fact is that Alexandra Morton shouldn't have to prove a damned thing. By international law we're bound by the Precautionary Principle, meaning that those who would invade the environment must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that they can do so safely. To put it bluntly, industry has done absolutely nothing to meet the onus of the Precautionary Principle.

All the fish farmers have proved is that they've contributed to Campbell's party and all the Campbell government has proved is that they got the message loud and clear. The Campbell government, when it comes to the environment, doesn't give a damn what it does or says as long as the money's there.

Since Alex blew the whistle nearly a decade ago every independent fisheries scientist has confirmed that sea lice from fish farms were wiping out migrating wild salmon smolts. Every peer reviewed paper confirms Alex's findings all of which were also peer reviewed.
Campbell Knew All Along

Campbell, who makes Pinocchio a minor leaguer, has consistently alleged that he has science on his side yet is unable to produce a single independent report to support him.

"Knew all along" - a tough charge?

Not a bit. Because, you see, BC wasn't the first place to have their wild salmon savagely destroyed by lice from fish farms. When I met with Irish scientists under the eminent Dr. Patrick Gargan a few years ago in Galway, one of them looked at me at said, and these were his words which I won't mince: "Can't ye ****ing well read out there in Canada? Don't you know what happened in Norway ... Scotland ... here in Ireland? Can't ye ****ing read?"

We can, but Gordon Campbell won't.

The federal government was also warned in 1991. Norwegian MP John Lilletun came to Canada to tell us that Norwegian salmon farmers were coming here to get away from higher environmental standards they faced back home. Clearly, the warning fell on deaf ears.
The Former Norwegian Attorney General Speaks Out

Many of us could read and spoke out again and again based upon this evidence. Now we can hear from Georg Fredrik Rieber-Mohn, a Norwegian judge who, as Attorney-General drew up important environmental protection guidelines for Norwegian fish farms. Here's what he recently said - and I advise Campbell and his toadies to cover their eyes.

During his remarks he alluded to the pending hockey game between Canada and Norway and said this:

In 1999, I was proud to present the so-called "wild salmon plan" which proposed national protection for the 50 best salmon rivers and the 9 most important fjord-systems across Norway - the national laksfjords - where salmon farms would be prohibited. However, intense lobbying from the salmon farming industry watered down the proposals so that by the time they passed the parliament in 2007 the protected fjords had become smaller and gave less protection against the salmon farming industry.

The result has been a heavy defeat for wild salmon and a huge win for sea lice. Scientific research published by the Norwegian Institute of Nature Research indicates that the areas protected from open net cage salmon farms are simply too small to offer adequate protection from sea lice. (emphasis mine)

Scientists in Norway detail growing sea lice resistance to the chemicals designed to kill them. The Norwegian Food and Safety Authority recently reported nearly 100 cases of chemical treatment failures as sea lice are now immune. So serious is the situation that the Directorate of Nature Management - the Norwegian Government's conservation adviser - has called for drastic reductions in farmed salmon production and slaughter of farm stock to reduce the sea lice burden. (emphasis mine)

Put simply, we had an open goal to save wild salmon but we missed the target. Now we are dealing with the consequences of poor defending. Atlantic salmon in the wild in Norway are now threatened with extinction in many rivers in Norway. There are many causes to this decline, but in vast areas the farming of salmon is the main factor. Escaped farmed salmon is a huge problem added to the problem of uncontrolled growth of sea lice. Scientists foresee remarkable damaging effects in new areas in the future. [EDITOR'S NOTE - in BC escapees indeed are occupying spawning redds but, thankfully, they do not interbreed with wild salmon].

In Norway we are underdogs to save wild Atlantic salmon - like in today's hockey game - but nature is resilient and wild salmon can make a comeback if given a fair chance. The lessons to be learned from Norway are painfully clear but the solution is an easy one.

If you want to protect wild salmon then you have to move salmon farms away from migration routes. (emphasis mine) Juvenile wild salmon have to run the gauntlet past salmon farms on their way out to sea and scientific reports show that they are decimated by sea lice - with reports of up to 90% mortality in some regions.

Even the owner of Marine Harvest - the world's largest salmon farming company and #1 in both Norway and in British Columbia - agrees that we must move the farms. When he was fishing on the River Alta - one of Norway's most majestic wild salmon rivers - in 2007 John Fredriksen made a plea as a passionate angler to relocate open net cages to save wild salmon. (emphasis mine)

Last year, I was honoured to meet with sea lice scientist Alexandra Morton in Oslo. I listened with a sense of deja vu as she outlined how Norwegian companies - who control over 90% of BC's salmon farms - are spreading sea lice to wild salmon. I watched Canadian filmmaker Damien Gillis's film "Dear Norway - Help Us Save Wild Salmon" and I was struck by a strong sense of solidarity and eerie familiarity. (my pride in the work done by my colleagues merited my emphasis)

Yet there is still hope for wild salmon in both Norway and Canada. With the world watching there is a growing sense of public awareness globally and a passion to save wild salmon.

In the name of God, won't Campbell and federal fisheries minister Gail Shea not listen now?
Where has the Media Been?

When you look back at the last near decade you see that both governments had the means to know as much then as they do now. Alex Morton, with only a few in support, painstakingly re-invented the wheel so that Gordon Campbell, who then had sole control of the issue, would see the facts, do his duty and get rid of the fish farms. In 2002 I presented to him, at his request, a paper laying out the scientific evidence of the catastrophe visited upon wild migrating salmon by lice from fish farms. I didn't even get the courtesy of a reply. Many of "the few," and Alex herself, are finally being recognized by the public but why has it taken so long?

The answer is simple: the media, for that read Canwest, has simply refused to cover this issue. It's not the fault of the many fine people who write for these poor excuses for newspapers. They understand as we in fairness should too, that there's no point in writing that which won't be published. Many of them have slipped little bits of information but this is scarcely "holding the government's feet to the fire!" No, I of all people make no criticism of the journalists for like them I too have had to grovel before these bastards.

The paltry 3-4 pages in the Globe and Mail's BC Section give better coverage of BC matters than the combined rubbish that comes out of the Sun and the Province.

This Mess Ought Never to have Started

This mess ought never have started. While the NDP government first licensed these contaminators they had the sense to re-evaluate their decision and place a moratorium on further expansion. I believe they should have banished them but at least they recognized that the "precautionary principle" ought to have been applied and wasn't.

When Campbell took office he knew the facts. He also knew who donated to his party; and he couldn't care less about our wild salmon just as he doesn't give a damn about our rivers. Corporate donors meant everything; idiots like Alexandra Morton and her supporters mustn't be permitted to interfere with unbridled capitalism as preached by the ultra right wing Fraser Institute, a former "Fellow" of which is a senior editor at the Vancouver Sun.

Campbell has been untruthful (I prefer a stronger term but my lawyer doesn't) about BC Rail and spouts untruths through his teeth about his energy program which has our great power company, BC Hydro forced to pay double what it's worth to private companies for power it can't use and must therefore export at a huge loss.

Alexandra Morton is going to win her fight, for which for those who care for our salmon, is our fight too - a battle to save the very soul of our province.

The Media in this province ought to have seen this issue for what it so clearly was from the outset and pursued Campbell with the same vigour they quite properly pursued Glen Clark over the "fast ferries." Canwest dislikes the NDP so covers for Campbell - as simple as that.
Heroes and Villains

We in BC have an industry, two governments and a media we should be thoroughly ashamed of.

On the other hand, we have a gallant lady who came from California to watch whales and stayed to make the saving of our wild salmon a sacred task and getting nothing but abuse for her efforts from industry, government and media.

Alexandra Morton deserves the undying affection and deepest gratitude of us all.
http://thecanadian.org/k2/item/24-rafe-alexandra-morton
 
SalmonTalks Lillooet, 7th April 2010

SalmonTalks At DFO Lillooet
[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_W3dlHrRiy...utside+DFOs+Lillooet+Office,+April+7+2010.jpg CTRL + Click to follow link]
Twenty-four members of Salmon Talks Lillooet arrived at the local DFO office to deliver a message of demand. Three key open-net-cage fish farms near Quadra Island must be emptied before the Fraser sockeye smolts reach the area, early in May.

Salmon Talks wants to know who is capable of ordering the three farms, all Norwegian-owned, to harvest and empty their pens of Atlantic salmon. Along with that, we asked what role the mid-Fraser Conservation and Protection office could take in ensuring safe passage for outmigrating sockeye smolts past these fish farms.

Supervisor Tom Grantham came out of the office to speak to the crowd, receive their letter, and make some response. “We all have the same concerns when it comes to the salmon and our future,” he assured the group, while insisting that neither did he know about the problems with fish farms nor could he take a position on them, nor could he say exactly who would be in a position to order the emergency closures. “I think it’s a very complicated system,” he advised; “I’ll ask, and if I get a response I will let you know.”

We now wait while Mr. Grantham forwards our letter and question to the Director of Aquaculture in Vancouver, the head of Conservation and Protection, and local Habitat branches of the Department. It is not the first such request to his office for action: “This subject comes up in all our meetings with First Nations.”

The group, comprised of young and old, St’át’imc and non-native, fisheries technicians and lay-people, delivered the office a stack of educational material on the impacts of the coastal net-cage fish farms on wild Fraser salmon. Primary concerns include the fact that the penned Atlantics eat the outmigrating smolts, and transfer disease and sea lice to them. The collection of documents included letters from leading biologists to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; a petition with 3,222 names on it demanding the immediate closure of the key three farms; documentation of scientific studies showing the decline in wild salmon – globally – is positively associated with the increase in fish farming (Ford-Myers, 2008); a statement from the Intertribal Treaty Organization demanding the same removal of farms from salmon migration routes; reports from the latest presentations at SFU’s Speaking for the Salmon dialogue, March 30 and 31; and maps and pamphlets produced by activists to promote awareness of the problems caused by fish farms.

The letter delivered to Grantham included the following statements: “We have concluded that one of the simplest and most easily accomplishable forms of protection of the salmon is to remove open-net-cage fish farms from the juvenile salmon's outmigration route along the coast of BC. One third of BC salmon migrate through the Georgia Strait and Discovery Islands or Broughton Archipelago. There are 80 tenures for Atlantic fish farms, in open-net-cage operations, between the mouth of the Fraser and the northern tip of Vancouver Island - the Inside Passage - which outgoing Fraser smolts must migrate through.”

One of the three farms being targeted for removal is ready for harvest now, and two of them only months shy of optimal harvesting. It takes up to two weeks to process the fish from a farm, if employees work round the clock shifts. At normal pace, it can take six weeks.

“Having just returned from the Summit on Fraser Sockeye Salmon held at SFU's Harbour Centre last week, and having witnessed presentations given by Michael Price and Alexandra Morton, we are more convinced than ever that said fish farms are impacting the mid-Fraser sockeye runs,” the letter continued.

“We of Salmon Talks Lillooet have come to your office to find out who can order the emergency closure of the three fish farms most precisely in the way of the 2010 outmigrating sockeye. We want Sonora, Cyrus Rocks, and Venture Point farms harvested and emptied by the earliest possible time, with mid-May being the latest date of acceptability. These three farms hold adult Atlantic salmon, which are the greatest threat to smolts, and are all very close to harvest. These farms are placed in a seaward bottleneck that the smolts must pass, and so have been shown to be in the place of highest risk to wild Fraser salmon outmigrations. Who can order their immediate harvesting and fallowing?”

Salmon Talks gratefully acknowledges the presence of Chief Bradley Jack of Xwísten (Bridge River), St’át’imc at the meeting this morning. He is pictured in ball cap and sunglasses, sixth from the right in the photo above.

For more information:

salmontalks@gmail.com
or
Kerry Coast – 250 256 2435

http://salmontalks.blogspot.com/
 
Alexandra Morton blog, 5th April 2010

Management by Denial

Dear Fin Donnelly – west coast Fisheries Critic

I still have not heard from the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands how the Download F...BCSFA_GRAPHS_ATL_2.4_2009[1] posted on the MAL website does not suggest sea lice in the area of Nootka Island are drug resistant. Treatment with Slice in October should have brought these lice numbers to near zero for a period of weeks. Not only did lice levels not drop low enough, they did not remain low.

While MAL has not answered my question for 5 weeks, Trevor Swerdfager, Director General of Aquaculture Management DFO has taken this a step further by telling the Federal Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that in regards to Slice resistance in Nootka area:

“We have absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever in British Columbia. We know that this is one of the latest suggestions that has come forward. We have looked into that situation, which has been profiled frequently on the web. But it's not just that.” (March 22, 2010).

This statement is indefensible. The MAL graph IS, in and of itself “evidence” of drug resistance and all the more so because MAL will not explain these numbers. We know this graph combines several areas, but Grieg's own graph of the specific farms near Tahsis is worse - showing an average of over 40 lice per fish, that after treatment dropped only to OVER THREE TIMES THE PROVINCIAL LIMIT. The drug could not even kill enough lice to reach the provincial limit for number of lice and the lice started reproducing immediately post treatment.

Grieg did harvest their fish, but not before this lineage of sea lice spread to the wild juvenile salmon of Tahsis Inlet, Nootka chum
and in the process of harvesting spread these lice to the Discovery Islands Walcan outflow pipe WS[1]
.

To the people reading this email this is exactly how we got into this fish farm mess. The provincial regulation of salmon farms does not deal with the issues in a way that is scientifically defensible or biologically effective. Questions go unanswered and erroneous statements are passed up the chain to the highest levels of government. Mr. Swerdfager’s statements to the Standing Committee suggests this behaviour will continue unabated as regulation transfers to federal jurisdiction.

The provincial government of British Columbia has to answer why, after application of Slice, did the average number of sea lice per fish in the Grieg salmon farms, Esperanza and Steamer, not drop to the allowed limit for sea lice in British Columbia? This has now reached the National level and these lice are traveling to sea in the wild salmon of Tahsis Inlet. Please note in the transcript below Mr. Swerdfager also suggests DFO does not acknowledge drug resistance in eastern Canada, even though the fish farm industry itself does and is getting new drugs specifically to deal with drug resistance! This suggests it is DFO policy to make this problem go away simply by denying it.

All of this is very disturbing and symptomatic of government covering for an industry that is associated with wild salmon population declines around in the world (Download Ford and Meyers). This type of irresponsible management is the reason First Nations, towns, scientists, business people and environmental organizations are all uniting in calling for removal of net pen salmon farms away from our wild salmon.

Mr. Donnelly, I can see no reason to continue asking MAL to answer questions they are stalling on. This lineage of lice is still alive and thriving on the wild salmon in the area and these specific lice should be tested today for drug resistance with participation from the salmon enhancement community of Gold River and the First Nations of the area so that we can all be sure this is being done properly. This is easy and possible and the only responsibly way to deal with this. It is only a short – window of opportunity and there are people who can easily collect these lice on hand.


Alexandra Morton

http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2010/04/management-by-denial.html
 
Report Blasts Hawaii Aquaculture
Environmental Group Claims Fish Farming Not Environmentally Sustainable
Dick Allgire KITV 4 News Reporter
POSTED: 2:48 pm HST April 8, 2010
UPDATED: 4:03 pm HST April 8, 2010
Email Print
Comments
(3)
IBSYS.application.Application.registerComponent('IBSYS.hrst.commentCount','N418D1',{ });

HONOLULU -- A new report from a national environmental organization blasts Hawaii's aquaculture industry, saying it damages the environment and is not sustainable. Companies that farm fish in Hawaii dispute the report.
Hawaii has been a testing ground for large-scale industrial fish farming. Currently there are two fish farms here, one off Kona on the Big Island, another off Ewa. More are planned.
Scientists, environmentalists, and native Hawaiians gathered at the Capitol today to urge sustainable fish farming based on more traditional methods. They point to the report by Food and Waterwatch, an environmental organization that says waste from large fish pens damages the bottom. The report also claims the farmed fish spread disease to wild populations.
“The farmed fish are sitting ducks for disease because they are crowded together and there are no predators inside the cage to kill the diseased fish. So diseased fish stay alive a long time and spread pathogens into the water and that infects wild fish.” Said Neil Frazer, a professor at the UH School of Ocean and Earth Science & Technology.
The report says Hawaii aquaculture has failed to demonstrate it is environmentally sustainable. The Pono Aquaculture Alliance wants to see traditional Hawaiian fishpond methods used.
“You have predators that remove the diseased and weak fish to keep the population healthy. You have bottom feeds like crab and shrimp that keep the bottom clean you have fresh water that comes into the pond when fish get parasites they can swim into the intrusion areas and those parasites die,” said Isaac Harp, a proponent of native Hawaiian fish pond farming.
The manager of the state's Aquaculture Development Program supports commercial open-ocean fish farming.
“We see the benefits of open ocean aquaculture and aquaculture in general to provide a safe food source for the population. We know that Hawaii needs to become more self sufficient. We import over 80 percent of our seafood now,” said Todd Low, manager of the state Aquaculture Development Program.
Copyright 2010 by KITV.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
Mark Hume
Calls to save salmon from across the pond
Vancouver, BC — From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, Mar. 29, 2010 11:42AM EDT

Last updated on Monday, Apr. 05, 2010 3:33AM EDT


.The Salmon & Trout Association of the United Kingdom has His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as its patron, and Ralph Percy, the Duke of Northumberland, as its president.

Founded 107 years ago, the organization works quietly to promote the proper management of aquatic resources, often focusing its efforts on influencing the highest levels of government.

As its name suggests, the association, which has 100,000 members, has a special interest in trout and salmon.

So it was only a matter of time before it took a stand on one of the most troubling environmental issues of the day: fish farming.

After a careful study of peer-reviewed science, the S&TA last week released its position paper on the impact of aquaculture on wild Scottish salmon stocks. And it is a stunning condemnation of an industry that is also under fire in British Columbia.

The S&TA does not equivocate. It states a review of the leading science “reveals a devastating catalogue of malpractice in the way salmon farming is impacting wild salmon, sea trout and the marine environment, and provides incontrovertible proof that it is a sword of Damocles suspended over some of Scotland's most iconic natural resources.”

The report accuses the salmon farming industry in Scotland “of precipitating an environmental disaster” and calls on government for the immediate implementation of a survival plan to save wild stocks.

It identifies the three biggest problems as the spread of sea lice from farmed to wild stocks; the interbreeding of escaped farmed fish with wild stocks and the pollution of the sea floor around ocean net pens.

“It has been a sobering experience researching the evidence surrounding the interaction between salmon fish farming and wild fish stocks,” says Janina Gray, S&TA's Head of Science. “The evidence is clear that aquaculture can have a significantly negative impact, in some areas, on wild salmon, sea trout and their environment. We must learn from the scientific evidence available, enforce the precautionary principle and take action before it's too late.”

Paul Knight, S&TA's CEO, said fish farming “can offer enormous benefits to mankind and significantly reduce the [fishing] pressure on our precious wild oceanic stocks,” but it must be done differently.

“The scientific literature unequivocally demonstrates that fish farms, as presently constructed and operated, are having a disastrous impact on native fisheries, the wider environment and the many public benefits associated with it,” said Mr. Knight.

“It must be the government's statutory responsibility, and the industry's moral one, to protect two of Scotland's most valuable and iconic natural resources – wild salmon and sea trout – before it is too late,” he said.

The report calls for industry to shift from open-net pens, to enclosed systems, “therefore cutting out any interaction between farmed and wild salmon and sea trout.”

It says government, industry and wild fish organizations should work out a timeline for that transition, and that they should do so with a sense of urgency.

The report says the precautionary principle should be adhered to at all times; a list of ecologically sensitive sites should be drawn up and “sea-based salmon farms must be moved away from locations with significant salmon and sea-trout migration runs, within estuaries, locks and offshore.”

In short, the organization makes pretty much the same key demands that environmental groups have been calling for in B.C. for years.

The provincial government and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans have so far ignored those groups, dismissing them as loud, single-interest advocates.

But now, on the far side of another ocean, a group with impeccable peerage and an impressive track record of working with government has come to similar conclusions.

Fish farming urgently needs to be reformed. That's not some radical environmental group saying that, but an organization backed by Prince Charles and The Duke of Northumberland.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-salmon-from-across-the-pond/article1515880/
 
Salmon and Trout Association: Scientific Advisory Panel

http://www.salmon-trout.org/scientific_advisory.asp
Eight of this country’s leading authorities in subjects ranging from hydrology to sedimentation, fisheries management to sustainable development, have agreed to form the Salmon & Trout Association’s (S&TA) honorary Scientific Advisory Panel.

The members of this new Panel are: Dr. Adrian Collins, Prof. Ian Cowx, Dr. Mark Everard, Dr. Graeme Harris, Dr. Nigel Milner, Prof. Geoff Petts, Prof. John Stonor and Dr. Robin Welcomme.

The members of the new Scientific Advisory Panel represent the finest collection of freshwater specialists to come together in the Fisheries world, and perfectly complement the Honorary Scientific Panel of the Atlantic Salmon Trust. The establishment of the new Panel is a further development in the S&TA’s stated stance of using scientific evidence to support all its influencing and policy decisions, and follows the recent appointment of Janina Gray as the S&TA’s first dedicated Head of Science.

S&TA are privileged to have such an eminent group of freshwater biological and fisheries specialists to assist the burgeoning work of our Science Department. Without question, their input is allowing us to take Fisheries influence to a new level of competence, and all those with an interest in the wellbeing of our aquatic environment and its dependent species should be grateful for their voluntary involvement.

Panel Biographies:
Dr Adrian Collins: Adrian is a Principal Research Scientist in the Environment Group, ADAS, having worked for 17 years in researching diffuse pollution from agriculture and additional sectors, focusing upon soil loss, fine sediment dynamics and sediment-associated nutrient and contaminant fluxes. Much of his work has been involved with the development of tracing and fingerprinting procedures for establishing the sources of fine sediment problems in river basins.

Adrian’s recent work has focused upon supporting sediment management for the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI. Looking forward, Adrian will be leading a new Defra funded project extending the evidence base for sediment impacts on freshwater ecology across England and Wales and developing a modelling framework for targeting mitigation options. S&TA is a co-funder of this project

Adrian is currently Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Exeter and Chair of the SEDAG international working committee on sediment targets for diffuse pollution policy support. He is currently collaborating with sediment researchers and policy teams overseas, including those in Belgium, France, Denmark, Canada and the USA.

Professor Ian Cowx: Ian is Director of the University of Hull International Fisheries Institute. He works on contemporary issues in freshwater fisheries management worldwide for agencies such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank, and has numerous collaborative research projects in the UK and Europe funded by the Environment Agency, European Commission and conservation agencies.

Recent projects include the EU funded projects EFI+ to develop a tool to assess the ecological status of rivers based on fish and IMPASSE to assess the impact of alien species in aquaculture, and nationally funded projects on the ecological responses of aquatic biota to hydromorphological degradation and rehabilitation in rivers, establishing environmental flows for fish, and assessment of the conservation status of fish species such as salmon, lamprey, shad and eel.

Dr Mark Everard: Mark has been involved in aquatic service and sustainable development for decades, working in research, policy and advocacy, as well as journalism and corporate consultancy. The author of five books, with more in production, two about fish and two concerning ecosystems. Mark has worked on rivers across five continents, including advisory roles to overseas and UK governments. Mark is chair of the Institution of Environmental Sciences, has served on a number of UK government advisory committees, and has performed voluntary roles with numerous national and international conservation and angling organisations. A lifelong and keen angler, he is also a keen photographer and artist, inspired by the vitality of the aquatic ecosystems that sustain thriving fisheries, their associated wildlife and human wellbeing.

Dr Graeme Harris: Graeme studied Botany and Zoology at Liverpool University, where he gained a 1st Class Honours Degree in Zoology having specialised in Marine and Freshwater Fisheries. This was followed by his PhD on the Biology of Sea Trout and then by two Research Fellowships on the ecology and behaviour of sea trout. After a short time in Devon as Fishery Scientist, he moved to Wales as Principal Fisheries Officer for the Welsh National Water Development Authority and then as District Fisheries, Conservation, Recreation and Navigation for the South East Region of Wales before joining Welsh Water Plc as an Executive Director of one if its subsidiary companies. He is currently Director of FishSkill Ltd, a fisheries and environmental resource management consultancy.

He is a Vice President of the Welsh Salmon & Trout Angling Association, Chairman of the Fisheries, Ecology & Recreation Advisory Committee of the Environment Agency in Wales, Deputy Chairman of the Inland Fisheries Stakeholder Group for the Welsh Assembly Government and a member of both the Environmental & Technical Committee of the Salmon & Trout Association and the Technical Steering Group of Afonydd Cymru/Welsh Rivers. He also serves on the Council of the Countryside Council for Wales.

Dr Nigel Milner: A life-long angler, he began in marine fisheries with MAFF, Fisheries Laboratory Lowestoft: PhD (1976) in effects of metal pollution on juvenile flatfish. To date, his career has encompassed virtually every aspect of fisheries science, which has included five years’ study of ecology and populations dynamics of fisheries of the River Wye when with the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology; setting up the first Fisheries Technical Unit for Welsh Water Authority; setting up and managing the Environmental Technical Team for the National River Authority; and, on formation of the EA set up the National Salmon and Trout Fisheries Centre and was, among many other projects, co-convener of first International Sea Trout Symposium, Cardiff in 2004. This led to the Celtic sea Trout Project.

He became Head of Fisheries Science for EA in 2003 and left in 2007 to resume his scientific career. He is now Honorary Research fellow (including teaching, PhD supervision etc)) at University of Bangor (Molecular Ecology and Fisheries Genetics Group) and Senior Fisheries Scientist with APEM. Also on Honorary Scientific Panel of the AST and Trustee of Clwyd and Conwy Rivers Trust. He has written 40+ peer-reviewed publications as well as co-editing Sea Trout Biology and Management.

Professor Geoff Petts: Geoff was appointed to a Lectureship at Loughborough University in 1979, was awarded a Chair in 1989, and became Head of Department in 1991. In 1994 he moved to Birmingham University as Professor of Physical Geography and Director of Environmental Research and Management. Two years later, he founded the Centre for Environmental Research and Training and became Head of the School of Geography and Environmental Sciences in 1998. He was Pro Vice Chancellor at Birmingham from 2001-7 before moving to the University of Westminster as Vice Chancellor and Rector.

His research is at the interface of hydrology, geomorphology and ecology and he has particular interests in regulated rivers, the analysis of environmental flows, and conservation applied to the sustainable development of water projects. His publications include 22 books and over 150 scientific papers and reports. He is founder and Editor-in-Chief of the international journal River Research and Applications - www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/rra.

Professor John Stoner: John studied at Liverpool University, where he gained a BSc in Chemistry, Physics, Oceanography and Industrial Administration, followed by a first class BSc in Chemical Oceanography and a PhD in Marine Geochemistry. Much of his career has been spent in Wales, firstly with the Welsh Water Authority, then the National Rivers Authority and finally as Executive Manager to the Head of Operations in the Environment Agency. Latterly, he has been consultant to the Institute of Welsh Affairs and the Welsh Assembly Government, and in 2000, was appointed Senior Consultant and Professional Research Fellow at the Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Aberystwyth. He has been at the centre of the Welsh Rivers Trust movement since its inception in 2002, firstly with the Pembrokeshire Rivers Trust and, since 2006, he has been engaged to develop Afonydd Cymru, the umbrella organisations for the Welsh Rivers Trusts. John is also a Fellow of the Institute of Fisheries Management.

Dr Robin Welcomme: Robin was educated at Birbeck College and obtained his PhD from the University of East Africa. He studied fish and fisheries in East and West Africa. He worked for FAO for 30 years, where he became the Chief of Inland Fishery Resources and Aquaculture Service. He was Secretary of the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. Robin is currently Secretary of the Institute of Fisheries Management. He has published over 120 scientific works during his career.
 
Comments from:

Salmon and Trout Association Association of Salmon Fishery Boards Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland

on:

Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue; Draft indicators for environmentally, socially and economically responsible salmon farming.

1. A Salmon Aquaculture Accreditation Scheme must include the following:

1.1 A strengthened industry code of practice. As a baseline standard, the COP must reflect agreements made within the NASCO Salmon Aquaculture Task Force, in conjunction with the ISFA, and to which all NASCO countries are signatories. (Section 2.3)

1.2 The acknowledgement of certified companies that salmon aquaculture can create significant impacts on wild fisheries, particularly from sea-lice and hybridisation between wild fish and farm escapees. There must be a signed commitment to improve operating practices towards environmental sustainability, with a built in review process. (Section 2.3)

1.3 An effective lice dispersal model must be developed in order to assess acceptable maximum farm/area lice levels (Section 2.7)

1.4 Farm accreditation should only run for one year and must be renewed annually against results of review process (Section 2.4)

1.5 The standards’ document must be restructured, so that the list of indicators is split into those required at individual farm level, and those required at an area level, taking account of the accumulative effect of several farms in a given area (Section 2.5)

1.6 The industry must draw up a list of sensitive aquaculture sites and economically important catchments. Farms sited within these areas cannot be certified. (Section 2.6)

1.7 The indicators must include the environmental impact on sea trout (Salmo trutta) populations, referring to the lice dispersal model, taking into account the coastal habitat of sea trout (Sections
2.7 and 2.8)

1.8 Certified farms must only stock smolts produced in enclosed units, or from farms on river systems that have no significant wild salmon populations. (Section 2.9)

2. General comments

2.1 The Steering Committee must define ‘environmental sustainability’

2.2 In its current form, the indicators’ document threatens to standardise current flawed operating procedures, rather than tackling the deep rooted problems associated with salmon aquaculture.

In order to achieve environmentally sustainable aquaculture, the impacts of escapees, disease and parasite transfer, and water pollution through waste material, must be addressed.

We believe the only way to ultimately achieve this is via enclosed aquaculture systems.

However, in the short to medium term, the standards within industry codes of practice must be significantly strengthened and adhered to, otherwise any accreditation scheme is in danger of giving a completely false impression to consumers as to the sustainability of salmon farming.

2.3 In Scotland, the Government and industry still officially deny the impact of salmon farms on native salmonids and the surrounding environment.

In order to create a level playing field, the final standards should include a declaration by individual companies, acknowledging that salmon aquaculture can create significant impacts on wild fisheries, particularly in the context of impacts by sea-lice and hyrbidisation between wild fish and escapees, and their commitment to improve operating practices towards environmental sustainability, within agreed timescales and with an annual review process.

As a baseline standard, the accreditation scheme must reflect agreements made within the NASCO Salmon Aquaculture Task Force, in conjunction with the ISFA, and to which all NASCO countries are signatories. These objectives can be found by linking to
http://www.nasco.int/pdf/aquaculture/BMP Guidance.pdf - 'Guidance on Best Management Practices to address impacts of sea lice and escaped farmed salmon on wild salmon stocks'

2.4 We strongly support annual certification, and believe that farms must be required to show yearly operational improvements, beyond the set standards, to continue being accredited.

2.5 The standards’ document must be restructured, so that the list of indicators is split into those required at individual farm level, and those required at an area level. Area level standards are necessary to tackle the cumulative impacts of farms within a given management area.

Therefore, in order for this certification process to assess the impact on wild salmonids, the industry must be required to invest in independent monitoring at an area level. It is therefore unlikely that an individual farm would be accredited within a farming area unless all other units are included in the relevant Area scheme.

2.6 The location of farms is vital in determining their impact on native salmonids. This is lost within the current indicators. It must be explicit that certain farms, such as those located close to wild salmonid migration paths, cannot be certified, because it is impossible to eliminate escapes and disease transfer within open system aquaculture.

The precautionary principle must be enforced in two ways:

i/ The industry, in conjunction with wild fish interests (including Rivers and Fisheries Trusts where appropriate), must draw up a list of sensitive aquaculture sites where farms cannot be certified, both now or in the future, because of their potential impact on wild salmonid stocks.

ii/ The industry, in conjunction with wild fish interests (including Rivers and Fisheries Trusts where appropriate), must draw up a list of economically important catchments where there should be a presumption against future aquaculture development (where there is currently none) or a presumption in favour of relocation and restoration (where farm units already exist)

2.7 An effective lice dispersal model must be developed as part of this accreditation scheme in order to assess acceptable maximum farm/area lice levels. Where wild salmonid migration routes are known using both current and future data - farms should only be established if the lice dispersal model shows minimal impact on salmonids using these routes. This model will also be relevant in determining the impact of lice from offshore farms.

2.8 The indicators must include the environmental impact on sea trout (Salmo trutta) populations, as they remain in coastal waters throughout most of the marine phase of their life cycle, and therefore may be more vulnerable to local parasite and disease transfer. The lice dispersal model must therefore inform potential to impact sea trout populations, taking into account current research being undertaken into the habits and movements of sea trout in their marine phase.

2.9 All certified farms must be required immediately to stock smolts produced in enclosed freshwater systems, or in systems that have no significant wild salmon populations – either present or historical.

Smolt producing units in freshwater pose a greater risk of introgression, due to serial escapes, than from marine cage sites, given the life stage at which escapes will occur. Norway already prohibits smolt units on rivers containing wild salmonids. This should be the basic standard for certificated farms.

3. Comments on Principle 3: Protect the health and genetic integrity of wild populations.

3.1.1. This documentation must be publically available. This should be extended to require the certified companies to make publically available information on their internal research programmes.

3.1.2. If non-endemic notifiable diseases are detected on a farm, it should lose its certification until the cause of disease can be scientifically established, and the threat removed.

3.1.4. This should be changed to: ‘Maximum on-farm lice levels, related to a maximum agreed area lice level’. An effective lice dispersal model must be developed as part of this accreditation scheme in order to assess acceptable maximum farm/area lice levels.

We support a baseline genetic standard, such as the current Norwegian standards, but in some locations the lice dispersal model may indicate where lower standards are necessary to protect wild fish populations.

3.1.7c. There is a need for specialists to create a standardised protocol for recording numbers of lice on wild fish (e.g. photographic images from counting stations), and a requirement for farms to invest in area/regional monitoring structures.

3.1.8c. We have serious concerns about defining a ‘minimum safe distance’. It is impossible to make a generic prediction of a safe distance, given the site specific nature of these impacts.

As stated above, a lice dispersal model must be established to determine, as far as possible, the potential impact on wild salmonids. Knowledge of migration routes should also be taken into account as it becomes available, as should the list of sensitive and economically important inshore sites.

3.2.1. The draft suggests that non native species can be introduced if they are assessed to pose an ‘acceptable level of risk’.

We question how an ‘acceptable’ level of risk can be determined when we do not understand the ecosystem level impacts of non-native species, and when open systems allow full interactions with the surrounding environment.

The impacts of non-natives can be very complex and take time to become apparent. We believe non-native salmon aquaculture should not be permitted for accreditation, unless within closed systems - where stricter control can be exercised and environmental impact genuinely minimised.

3.3. We support prohibiting transgenic salmon on farms, and recommend that the Steering Committee seeks a clear legal definition of ‘transgenic’ from the technical specialists involved.

3.4. The NASCO Aquaculture Task Force recommendations should be included in the Accreditation scheme. The current indicators state; ‘they seek only to minimise escapes from a farm’. It is important that funds are also made available to advance work on the impact of escapees on wild salmonids. The accreditation body must establish a mechanism for collecting area level funds from accredited farms for an independent body (such as local River/Fisheries Trusts in the UK) to genetically sample adult and parr salmonids in local river systems to determine the impact of farm escapees. This data should be used in the future to set standards on ‘acceptable’ impact.

3.5. It must be explicit that certain farms cannot be certified due to their location, as indicated through the list of environmentally sensitive and economically important sites, the use of the lice dispersal model and any known – and future - information on migration routes.

4. Summary

We believe that the above are basic principles that must be applied to a certification initiative. The greatest danger of seeking only to set standards on limited criteria – on merely the sustainability of feed sources, for instance – is that the public will perceive the whole of the farming operation to be environmentally sustainable when, in reality, significant impact on wild fish stocks and marine and freshwater habitats could still be occurring.

Meanwhile, further research is required into measures necessary to move the industry towards environmental sustainability, with objectives for achieving a high degree of certainty in the following:

 Minimising escapes
 Minimising transfer of disease and parasites between farmed and wild fish
 Minimising pollution from food and faecal waste
 Inshore Migration routes of wild salmonids, coordinating data with known offshore routes established through such initiatives as the SALSEA Project.

We make no suggestion as to how such research should be funded, except to note that the company set up to process the accreditation scheme would seem to be a logical coordination point.

http://www.salmon-trout.org/pdf/SAD_draft_indicators_comments_FINAL_2__2_.pdf
 
Hansard, 12th April 2010

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE number 07,

UNEDITED COPY -
Monday, April 12, 2010
* * *

¹ (1535)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC)): I'll call this meeting to order. We have with us by teleconference today Ms. Alexandra Morton. I'd like to thank you for joining us today via teleconference, Ms. Morton.
Ms. Alexandra Morton (As an Individual): Thank you.
The Chair: My name's Rodney Weston. I'm the chair of the committee.
Before we start, I'll go through just a couple of housekeeping items. We generally about a 10-minute opportunity for presentations from our guests, if you have some opening remarks. You'll probably hear a beeping noise throughout, Ms. Morton. Those are some time constraints that our members are limited to for questions and answers as we proceed throughout the afternoon. If you hear a beep, then don't be alarmed. It's a signal that the time has expired for certain exchanges, and we'll move on to the next one shortly.
I generally don't cut our guests off. If you could come close to wrapping up your remarks or bringing them to a conclusion shortly after hearing the beeping noise--finish your thoughts, I should say. The members know what it is and they know the signal, and they're usually pretty good at adhering to it as best as possible--usually pretty good.
Once again, I'd like to say thank you very much for joining us today. I know the members have lots of questions for you and look forward to the discussion that ensues.
If you don't have any questions, Ms. Morton, I'd ask you to please proceed with your opening comments.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Okay. Can you hear me all right?
The Chair: Yes, we can hear you fine.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Excellent. I really appreciate this opportunity and I appreciate you making it so easy for me to appear before all of you.
I just wanted to say a little bit about sea lice. I'm a killer whale researcher, but sea lice are actually very easy to study, and the reason I say that is because they change their body shape every few days for the first month. So when you see a fish you can see how long it has had each of those lice and that's how we've been able to study them. We watch the little fish come out of the rivers and we check them at intervals to see how many lice they have and typically they have no lice and then they get to the fish farms and they have baby lice. Then, as they go past the farms, the sea lice just mature and then when they get to the next farm, they get more juvenile lice. So that's why it has been easy for us to figure out where the lice are getting on the fish.
Now the reason I and many of my colleagues have such a strong opinion about the sea lice coming from the fish farms is because we've done experiments, not with the fish farmers really coming onside, but we work with them. So, for example, in an area where there are no farm fish one year, we'll count the number of lice on young fish, and then when they put the farm fish back, we count the lice on the young fish, and the pattern is really clear. If you take the farm fish out, the lice go away. If you drug the farm fish--so you're killing the lice on the farm fish--the lice go away on the wild fish. When you put the farm fish back, the lice come back. If you look at two areas in the same year and one area has no fish farms and the other has lots of fish farms, you find lice where there are farms and no lice where there are no farms.
So we've done a lot of work for 10 years. There was a little bit of a disturbing comment by Trevor Swerdfager saying that this work had been seriously debunked. I would like to say they tried to debunk it, but we were allowed to publish our responses in the Journal of Science which is arguably one of the two top journals in the world and very hard to get into. They published DFO and they published our response so I think it's questionable whether it was debunked at all.
Now the question about drug resistance in lice...it's inevitable. As soon as you have a monoculture, the parasites increase because there are no predators and because all the hosts are packed together. So in the wild, sea lice have a very difficult life when they're young. They hatch and then they have to swim for a period of days before they even have the ability to grab a fish. So this means they never get on their mother's fish. That fish is long gone, and they're lucky to find a fish at all. But when you take a salmon farm and you hold the fish stationary, and you crowd them together and you put them in the inshore waters, you're breaking three very fundamental biological natural laws that govern wild salmon. Wild salmon are supposed to move. They're not supposed to be beside the rivers when the young ones come out, and they're not supposed to be crowded together.
So what's happening now is the wild fish come in and for sure, lice are natural and they have lice. They pass them to the farm fish and then all the wild fish go into the rivers and they die. This really brings down the lice population to nearly zero but what happens now is that as the wild fish go by the farms, the lice are passing to the farm fish. The wild ones go and die but the farm fish don't, and they have lights on...so the fish are crowded and stationary and as the baby lice hatch, they find fish to attach to and the lice numbers come up and when you've got 600,000 to a million farm salmon in a school, it doesn't take very many lice on them to make billions of larval lice. Lice, like most parasites, reproduce rapidly. They're a very fecund animal.
So this means that there are many generations of lice and when you treat them with the drug you never kill all the lice. You talk to fish farmers and they all realize you can't kill them all, and so the ones that survive are a little bit resistant to the drug and they produce babies. Then as more drugs are used, of course, the resistance builds. This is a very serious problem in Norway. The lice are becoming resistant to all the drugs, both in the feed and bath treatments. On the east coast of Canada...Mr. Swerdfager was debating whether DFO really recognized drug resistance there, but the fish farmers certainly recognize it. They now have three more drugs to use and the trouble with these further drugs is the one we're using now is in a pellet form which the fish eat. It does come out through the fish waste, but the other treatments are bath treatments. They drop tarps and they pour the drug in, and it affects the outside of the fish, but then they lift the tarps and this goes into the water.
¹ (1540)
In the areas where there is salmon farming in British Columbia we have very, very viable prawn, crab, shrimp, other fisheries that are fishing for animals with a shell and all these drugs that they use on the lice attack animals with a shell.
So I'm really happy to answer all your questions. I also just want to point out that sea lice are just the easy pathogen to study, but the same dynamic is occurring with bacteria and viruses. They get in, they intensify like they do in all feedlots and then they challenge wild fish at a higher level than they are designed to take.
That's all I have to say and I'm really happy to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Morton.
We're going to start off with Mr. Byrne.
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chair and Ms. Morton. Thanks for appearing before us via teleconference.
We've had some discussions in the past regarding the use of the lights and it's impact on salmon aquaculture, cage culture, rearing facilities. You made reference to it in your opening remarks about the use of high intensity lighting systems as part of farm infrastructure. Could you elaborate a little on what your feelings are in terms of the consequence to indigenous stocks, populations and the salmon runs?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Yes, you bet.
First of all it is an enormous concern for commercial fishermen because lights were banned from commercial fishing in British Columbia some decades ago because they are so known to attract everything. Herring fishermen used to use them to get herring but they were also catching octopus and other species of fish. The lights cause lice to reproduce more rapidly because they think it is summer, but they also attract plankton. When I do plankton tows near fish farms with lights I get far more plankton organisms then I do compared to the farms with no lights. They also attract fish, so there is a growing concern with the number of wild fish that are in these pens. I actually laid a charge against Marine Harvest for having wild pink salmon in the pens and the lights are partly responsible for attracting the fish to them so they're a very serious problem. Of course this is a problem that's easily dealt with as they could just turn them off.
Hon. Gerry Byrne: And so the consequence is that it's magnifying or intensifying the actual outbreak of lice populations, if you could acknowledge whether or not I am hearing correctly. Could you describe, in your opinion, the specific impact this lice population outbreak would be having on local wild salmon populations?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Regarding the lights, yes you are correct. They cause the lice to reproduce and they also attract fish to the problem area so they are a big problem.
When I first discovered the sea lice problem in 2001 it was infecting 99% of the juvenile salmon in the area. Overtime, slowly the salmon farming industry has gotten on the case and they are now treating their fish with the drug slice. However, they are treating their fish every single spring which is certainly going to make drug resistance happen but they have to do that to reduce the lice. In the last two years there has been a concerted effort by the fish farmers to treat at the right time and the proper farms and they brought the lice down to a level that we got a couple of generations through.
All the pink salmon that were turned last year, we had a look at them from Campbell River to the area where I live, Broughton, they looked really clean. The fish farmers were treating with the drugs. What this tells you is this Norwegian salmon farming industry has become the gatekeepers to our fish. If they clean up their lice problem, we get fish back. Of course we don't know what their bacterial and viral problems are but they have to also be considered. It bothers me that industry and in some cases government have used last winter's pink salmon returns to argue that wild fish can survive with these salmon farms. That is not the case at all.
What that actually tells us, is that the salmon farms are the bottleneck our fish are going through and as soon as they deal with their lice, boom, we get fish back. The problem is the drug is a temporary solution.
¹ (1545)
Hon. Gerry Byrne: Would you be able to categorize for us the opinions expressed by other groups other than yourself, for example the Canadian Veterinary Association, have they expressed an opinion? I know veterinarians are involved in aquaculture so obviously the Canadian Veterinary Association would necessarily be involved in the aquaculture industry. Have they expressed any opinion about this whatsoever? We're dealing with a very technical science here, drug resistance, what has been their opinion in your mind?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: I haven't heard their opinion on sea lice in general, but I am dealing with Dr. Mark Sheppard at the province. He is a veterinarian who's in charge of this, and he is saying there is no evidence of drug resistance anywhere in British Columbia. I keep writing him back, saying the graphs on your website, on the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands website, for the area of concern, for a scientist they're a neon sign warning drug resistance.
The reason I say that is because they had very high lice levels in this area on those Grieg farms. They treated it in October and the lice levels came down to three times the provincial limit, nine, an average of nine per fish, and then they bounced right back up. So I've asked him, what is your explanation for that behaviour in the lice after the treatment? They won't answer. They just keep saying, “We're looking into it”, or, “It's a concern”, or, “We don't see any evidence”. He won't tell me why that happened.
Now, there's actually an audio clip on CBC from Dr. Larry Hammell from the University of P.E.I. He describes what drug resistance looks like in sea lice, and he describes exactly what's on those charts in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands website.
So quite frankly, they're not answering the question. I don't see how you can look at those graphs and not see drug resistance.
Hon. Gerry Byrne: I think we all recognize there are probably a number of different causes or sources of population decline or disappearance in terms of Fraser River sockeye. Would you characterize an explosion in sea lice population in key transit areas as being the critical cause for wild salmon population decline?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: I would expand that to pathogen explosion because a lot of fish farm herders now come to me directly, and talk to me, and tell me what goes on in these farms. I, unfortunately, can't do much with that information because they don't want to be revealed, they won't tell me the exact site sometimes. The impression I have very clearly is that there are large bacterial and viral outbreaks on these salmon farms.
There was a paper written by Dr. Sonja Saksida that described a massive outbreak of the virus IHN from 2001-03, which infected 12 million farm salmon. The Fraser sockeye swam through that, and that was the 2005 generation that crashed so badly.
Now the really key thing about those Fraser sockeye, there's a pattern we should be reading. All of the stocks that have been genetically observed going north past Campbell River and the 60 salmon farms from there to the open ocean, they are in steep decline. The one stock that is observed genetically going out the bottom of Vancouver Island--they're called the Harrison--they're actually increasing. If you pull back your focus, the Somass River coming out of Alberni Inlet on the west coast of Vancouver Island goes by no salmon farms, goes straight into the Pacific Ocean. That run of sockeye came back at more than twice what DFO forecast. As well, the Columbia River to the south, and the Okanagan River, which feeds into the Columbia, those sockeye go straight into the Pacific Ocean. They're in the same latitude and they did extremely well: they passed no fish farms.
That pattern, to me, says (a) there was a serious problem in the eastern coast of Vancouver Island, and (b) that's where all the salmon farms are. We absolutely need to know what pathogens were on those farms or we will never answer this question.
There are also processing plants spewing bloodwater into these areas. Some kids went down and videoed the Walcan one on Quadra Island. They put my plankton net right over the end of the pipe, and like it or not, they bottled it all up, put it in a cooler for me to check. Coming out of that pipe were sea lice hatching: they were actually alive. It's the first time I'd actually seen sea lice hatch. So that suggests viruses and bacteria are coming out that pipe, too.
All of that is so incredibly risky to our Fraser sockeye. The fact that only those stocks that are going through that area are in decline is a huge warning sign. If we really want to protect those fish, we need to pull those farms out right now and just test and see what happens. At the very least, we need to know exactly what was going on in them.
¹ (1550)
Hon. Gerry Byrne: With the shift in certain aspects of jurisdiction from the province to the federal government in December of this year, what specifically would you ask for or anticipate the federal government could do in response to some of your concerns?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: First of all I would say the federal government needs to take over the health of these fish. I understand that is going to remain with the province and that office in my estimation is a big part of the problem we're in today because everything I bring to them never seems to come out the other end to the politicians.
Second, they have been run as provincial farms so when the province says they're highly regulated they're talking about what happens inside the leases. But now that it's going to become federal and you are responsible for the fish outside the farms the measurement of impact of salmon farms has to be taken outside the farms on the wild fish to see where the waste is going. It's not good enough to say it's clean under those farms. A ton of food is coming out of those fish every single day and we know it's going somewhere. So find it. We need to measure the lice numbers of the wild fish. That's the indicator of whether it's okay inside the farms. We need to measure the disease. We need complete transparency on bacteria and viruses.
If there is one thing I could beg you to do it would be to please check every single Atlantic salmon facility in British Columbia for infectious salmon anemia just as soon as you can. Minister Shea has taken an extraordinarily risky position on that. She says there is no strong evidence that this virus comes in the eggs. But the scientists who are studying this out at the University of Bergen and they're saying that's how it got to Chile. Now certainly these Norwegian companies did not want that virus to go to Chile and somehow it slipped through the cracks and I'm not hearing how we're protected. So this scientist, Dr. R. Neelan said British Columbia is guaranteed to get this virus and it's the last thing we want with our five species of salmon. He also said we probably already had it.
That would be at the top of my list of requests.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Blais.
[Français]
M. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): Merci, monsieur le président. Bonjour, madame.
Êtes-vous relativement optimiste ou pessimiste dû au fait que dans les prochains mois, soit d'ici décembre 2010, le fait de pouvoir travailler dans le dossier de l'aquaculture en Colombie-Britannique sera une responsabilité fédérale?
On parle d'une gestion provinciale à une gestion maintenant fédérale. De quelle façon voyez-vous cela dans l'avenir?
[English]
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Well I'm optimistic because now for once the people who are responsible for the wild fish will also be responsible for the farmed fish. In my experience I've been like a ping-pong ball. I go to the province and say there's this problem. They tell me DFO said it was okay. So then I go to DFO and they tell me the province is managing it. So it's just been back and forth. Now it will all be in one house.
I also feel we need to clean that house up because the people of British Columbia are saying they want wild salmon as the top priority. What I see is that every time there is conflict the farm salmon win. We are told that our concerns are not valid. That's why I did 10 years of sea lice research because DFO told me to prove it because it was anecdotal. They told me they wanted made-in-B.C.-science. So I turned my home into a research station and now we've done over 20 scientific papers on this.
It's time to accept the science and to move forward. This era of denial has got to end because I think British Columbia is just not going to take it any more.
[Français]
M. Raynald Blais: Je ne veux pas briser votre optimisme, mais à la limite, le fédéral y était auparavant, le ministère des Pêches et Océans y était déjà. Il pouvait intervenir d'une certaine façon et, possiblement qu'il est intervenu, mais le problème demeure. Comment cela se fait-il que, par magie, parce qu'on change de gestionnaire, tous les problèmes vont disparaître et les solutions vont apparaître?
¹ (1555)
[English]
Ms. Alexandra Morton: I accept it will not be a magical change. I see enormous work ahead. But we do have the Fisheries Act, which is a powerful toolbox. In 1993 provincially licensed aquaculture was exempted from all the regulations surrounding fishing in Canada. They got protected from using those lakes. They got protected from having wild fish in their pens, from destroying habitat. Somebody put up a shield between this industry and the federal government. Well, I'm hoping that shield will come down. And honestly, I don't think the Norwegian industry can survive this. I think they will leave.
But there's a Canadian industry that is trying to grow here. I just learned in December that the provincial government would not even meet with these people who are farming salmon and other species on land in fresh water. They have a website called “aquaculturebc.com”. And they're trying to grow.
So for me, the solution is to apply the Fisheries Act full bore on this industry, and if it can't survive, I think the Norwegians, frankly, should go home because they've just been bullies, and let the Canadian industry grow. For people whose jobs are going to be damaged when these Norwegians leave, give them an opportunity to do what they know how to do, which is grow fish, and work with this Canadian industry. So now you will have an industry that's in the towns. The money will stay here. It will not go to shareholders. There will be some real salaries, instead of the low wages that are on these farms. And you will get your wild salmon, too. This is what will work for these little towns.
The government told me fish farming was good for my town. We've got 29 big Norwegian salmon farm sites. Our school is closed now. There are nine people left in my town. It was not good for us. They don't want to hire local people. They're very secretive. The first nation chiefs and the tourism operators in my area.... All they ever said to the industry was to please move over, don't go on the major migration routes. But the provincial government allowed them onto the major migration routes, and that's why we're in the mess we are today.
[Français]
M. Raynald Blais: Je considère que votre implication est citoyenne. Dans ce sens, on ne peut que la saluer, parce que toutes les implications possibles de différents intervenants sont à souhaiter, dans des problématiques de ce genre. Toutefois, j'aimerais vous demander si vous ne pensez pas qu'éventuellement, ce n'est pas nécessairement une solution gouvernementale qui permettra d'arriver aux solutions, et qu'il faudra que tous les intervenants — non seulement l'industrie, mais aussi les gens et la communauté — prennent part à un plan de solution. Car si on se fie uniquement au gouvernement pour tout régler, il risque d'y avoir certains problèmes.
[English]
Ms. Alexandra Morton: I could not agree with you more. You're absolutely right. Let these towns figure out some solutions here. The heavy hand of government and these industries that will not respond.... We have been trying to work with this industry. The environmental groups of Canada have made an amazing effort. They've tried to negotiate with them, tried to protect these fish and allow the salmon-farming industry to continue. But it gets out of control every time.
So you're absolutely right. There are enormous solutions. People have been very patient. But the response I'm getting from people, because they think I can fix this, is now overwhelming. I have never had so many angry people coming to me hoping that somebody would fix this situation.
[Français]
M. Raynald Blais: Merci beaucoup.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Now Mr. Donnelly.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Thank you.
Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ms. Morton, for coming to the committee and providing your information and testimony. I have a couple of questions for you.
I want to read a comment that we heard at this committee. As you know, aquaculture is one of the possible causes of the decline of the Fraser River sockeye run last year. It was devastated. At a recent hearing, the committee heard that DFO did not “have information that suggests that the presence of fish farms is causing a decline in the wild salmon populations in British Columbia right now”. I'm wondering if you could comment on that statement as well as on, turning to sea lice specifically, sea lice outbreaks, two other things.
Apparently a while back, there was a fish farm on the west coast that was about to be charged for a violation. I'm wondering if you know anything about this case, and if so, if you could comment on it.
And finally, sea lice outbreaks have occurred elsewhere in the world. I'm wondering if you could comment on the link between these sea lice outbreaks around the world, and infestations, and our wild salmon populations or other fish populations.
º (1600)
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Yes. DFO is a bit schizophrenic at this point. I would say the guys on the grounds are seeing evidence, but that information never seems to get to the top. So the fact that DFO has no evidence, that's in my mind irrelevant.
First of all they don't know what diseases are on these farms. Second of all, they had a front seat on the sea lice epidemics of the Broughton . There was enormous evidence that it was the fish farms because in 2003 they took all the farms off the migration route and the number of pink salmon that survived and came back from that generation was greater than it has ever been recorded in the history of studying pink salmon. And that's a paper actually by Dr. Dick Beamish. But what Beamish took from that study was that fish farms and wild salmon can survive together. Well that was a very flawed jump in reasoning because in fact what had happened that year was the fish farms had been removed.
So there's a lot of evidence that the farms are affecting the wild salmon and there's a tremendous number of holes in our knowledge about what is going on on these farms for viruses and bacteria.
I don't know which farm was going to be charged. I certainly hope it was the Esperanza site in the Naneut Sound area because they had over 40 lice per fish average, and they treated it with a drug and they got down to nine which is still over the provincial limit, and they immediately started killing their fish. So they got most of them out in time, but I have a crew out there right now and we're finding that lineage of drug resistant lice on small fish.
Now Mr. Swerdfager says it's very difficult to test for residence in sea lice and that's not true. It's actually extremely simple. I don't have the budget or capacity to do it myself. I tried but was unable to do that.
Now in terms of what is happening globally, let me just say when I first found sea lice on salmon in 2001, I wrote to scientists in Norway and they taught me how to study them. I just wrote them and I said we had sea lice all over our young salmon. And the first thing the guy wrote back was “do you have fish farms?” So it's very well recognized over there.
But I would also point you to a recent release by the United Kingdom Trout and Salmon Association. One of their patrons is Prince Charles. They have a great condemnation of fish farms. They say that they are responsible for destroying wild salmon and trout stocks. It's interesting because the relationship between salmon farms and governments everywhere has been extremely tight and some people are calling it collusion. And it seems to be the way they operate. But if you talk to the scientists and the fishery people like the fishermen or in case in Europe where they own fisheries, they're all seeing a very, very strong link. As soon as you put these farms in, you've got a decline in the wild fish. Soon as you take them out, it's coming back. And it's such a simple biological reason. Salmon farms break natural laws that wild salmon have to obey. They have to move, they have to have the predators getting the sick fish. It cannot be crowded near the rivers. I mean imagine this. All these salmon come home every fall and they die. Why would nature kill a fish that went all the way out into the open Pacific and made its way all back to its spawning grounds, this is a successful animal. Nature should preserve that fish and send it out again. But instead, it's dead. And the reason is to break the cycle of disease. And so you can't just go along now and break these laws and expect there not to be a problem. So we have the problem. We just need to follow the natural laws of the salmon.
º (1605)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Calkins.
Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you Alexandra for being here. We've met before. I'm not sure if you recall, but I'm certainly interested in asking you a few questions.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: I did.
Mr. Blaine Calkins: I'm very interested in the issue.
My background just to let you know is I have a zoology degree in fisheries and aquatic sciences from the University of Alberta. I've worked as a fisheries technician for Alberta Fish and Wildlife and a conservation officer in the Province of Alberta. And I've also been a fishing guide. So I've got a lot of interest in particularly a fish that have a sport fishing value which of course our Pacific salmon do. And I know that you've got a great set of credentials, but if you wouldn't mind just sharing that for the sake of the committee so that we can have it as a matter of record.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: You bet.
I don't have a great set of credentials. I have been doing this a long time. I'm a registered professional biologist, but I've now written 17 scientific papers that have published. And, as result, Simon Fraser University is giving me a honorary Doctorate of Science in June.
I've often apologized for my credentials, but Dr. Daniel Pauly, who is one of the best-known scientists in the world and a fishery scientist, said don't do that because if you are doing science and it is being published, it has undergone peer review, and people with credentials are examining and picking apart your work, particularly controversial work, as in the case of the science paper where we actually predicted an extinction. That was an uncomfortable thing for the Journal to consider and so they took our data and they sent us a Dr. Ray Hillborn who's also one of the more illustrious scientists on fisheries in the world. He ran the data and got the same results as us.
This is how people attack me, is with my credentials, but the science stands. And it has now been replicated around the world by my colleagues from many universities, including the University of Alberta.
Mr. Blaine Calkins: I appreciate that. I appreciate your honesty there. If you're a registered professional biologist, I know that has some meaning.
How many journals have you been published in and how many periodical have you had? You said 17, is that correct?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Seventeen. I would take a minute to list all the journals, but the American Journal of Fisheries Science, Alaskan journals, the Journal of Science, the ICES Journal of Marine Science in Europe, and many different journals.
Mr. Blaine Calkins: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, yes.
Mr. Blaine Calkins: That's good.
As a person who obviously takes a science-based approach to this, as somebody who thinks probably along the same lines, it's a very analytical type of process, I think you've stumbled across this lice issue as a part of your whale research, if I can be so bold as to make that statement. You mentioned that you have a bunch of colleagues who work with you on various studies, could you just tell the committee what you collaborate with? Do you simply study the issue from the perspective of lice? Do you take into consideration other environmental factors?
The Pacific Ocean is a big experimental jar, it's a big lab, if I could put it that way. There's been lots of information that's come to me. For example, I've read reports, I've heard information suggesting that it's water temperature which also might be affecting some of the runs, and I've got an article here today that says that there's some research going on that says some astounding numbers here, that seals in some of these rivers have killed up to 10,000 adult chum salmon per seal, and that on the way salmon fry were basically eaten like popcorn by seals, that they take 60 to 70 fry in a particular minute.
Could you tell us how some of this other information coincides because your perspective seems to be solely focused on sea lice. I respect the fact that that's the issue that you're working on, but can you elaborate on how some of your research and how some of your colleagues might be looking at some of these other issues as well?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Yes, you bet. First of all, I'd like to say I'm not just fixated on sea lice. It's all the pathogens from salmon farms. We really do have to consider the bacteria and viruses.
Water temperature and salinity are two of the big factors in a sea lice's life. He can't survive; he dies in fresh water; and survives better and better as the water becomes more salty. So the saltier years, yes, you get a higher rate. In the colder years, it slows growth down, but they're still out there.
It's like a corn field. If you have bad conditions and you have no corn in that dirt, you will not get corn plants. But if you put your corn seeds in and you have a great year, you're going to have a beautiful corn crop. If you have a frozen year or flash floods, your corn crop is going to be poor. It's the same with the sea lice. Those other variables affect it, but they're not supposed to be there. They're not supposed to be in the inshore waters. Now, people have argued that they bury in the mud as adults when the Pacific fish go in, but nobody can find them in the mud.
So we do what we do. Obviously, when those journals review us, they are looking for every other reason, and they pick up apart, and those variables are important.
I think you jumped a little bit to the Fraser sockeye and temperature. I've had the privilege of attending two meetings organized by Simon Fraser University where the Pacific Salmon Commission scientists, the Simon Fraser University scientists--DFO can't be there because of the inquiry--but other than that, every one whose life is figuring out how many sockeye are going to come back, have been there. They say that in-river temperature is not a variable, particularly in 2009. Ocean temperature was good in 2009. Plankton was good in some areas in 2009. They had all these things, and that green, yellow, red, and for 2009, it was green, green, green. They actually saw the fish leave the river, and they were bigger than normal, and more abundant than normal because this certain lake is not glaciating as much, and it's more productive. That's another issue. In any case, lots of them went out.
They say that something has happened in the last decade and a bit, that it made the modelling process of how many sockeye are going to come back, they have made it not work. There's some new variable they say that they can't explain. So when I went in front of them, the first thing they said to me was, “Oh, Alex, you've got to get off your sea lice agenda”, and I was like, “Yes, I understand that, but just hear me out for 10 minutes”. I talked about the biological laws of these fish and the diseases that are happening. Imagine, in 2003, 12 million Atlantic salmon are infected with IHN virus, and it was jumping farm to farm to farm. This paper showed that. When they brought their smolt boats through just sucking water up, they got infected, and they brought it to my home in the Broughton, and put it in Simoom Sound, and seven more farms got infected. We would be unrealistic to imagine that our wild fish are swimming through that and not getting infected as well. IHN is deadly to salmon and to herring.
º (1610)
Mr. Blaine Calkins: If that's the case, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know of any differentiation...I don't know if a sea lice differentiates between a sockeye and a pink. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong. If that was the case, then some of the things that we're seeing...because you do have base line data that you can look at where migratory runs go nowhere near a particular fish farm and we're seeing low sockeye returns or different variances on returns in those as well, for example, the Skeena. How would it be that, is it something in the life cycle that I'm missing that the pinks can come back in record numbers, and yet the sockeye don't, and yet they're still sharing the same Pacific Ocean roughly in the same timeframe?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Well, you've got a couple of things going on there. First of all, the pinks that came back last year went out in a different year so we have yet to see the result on the sockeye. Those pinks went out in 2008, so that's a different story with the pinks all together. The fish farmers drugged their fish from Campbell River to Port Hardy and we got the pinks through and they came back.
Now, about the Skeena River. That river, as I understand, dropped by about 50%, which is very different situation, biologically, than a 98% drop, which is what we saw in some of the runs of sockeye--and it was the big runs--which is why it brought the whole thing down.
But think, for a minute, what happens. When our sockeye leave the Fraser River most of them go up through Campbell River and then they leave Vancouver Island and they keep on going. And they run through the river's inlet sockeye, and they mingle with the Skeena sockeye, and then they arc around the Pacific Ocean and they do a couple of loop-de-loops and then they come back down.
I'm not saying I'm right, but if you went with the theory that it's disease, you have all these sockeye that potentially have disease and they're moving through the farms, and they go up the coast, and they're carrying the disease with them. That's maybe why there is a diminishing effect as you get farther up the coast.
My point really is that until we know what is going on in those farms and coming out those effluent pipes, people like me can come up with any theory we want. But there is a way around this. If we get the fish farmers to tell us what has gone on in those farms for 10 years and we compare that to what's gone on in our enhancement hatcheries--because those are fish we handle and we really know what's going on--you can track strains of disease. We do it with H1N1. We can do it with fish but we're not doing it. There is this veil of secrecy and try as we might, we are not allowed to know what's going on inside those farms. We're just starting to get a little bit of sea lice information but it's packaged in a way that's very difficult to use.
So until they come forward with their information, my theory is really about the strongest one out there, unfortunately.
º (1615)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Byrne.
Hon. Gerry Byrne: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, again, Ms. Morton.
On the issue of finding the truth, are you confident from what you know to date about the terms of reference and the mandate of the Cohen commission and the Fraser River sockeye salmon inquiry, would you be able to describe for the committee anything positive you feel about the nature of that inquiry and any concerns you may have? And specifically, is it your feeling that the Cohen commission has the capacity, the jurisdiction, and the legal opportunity to actually investigate the conduct of salmon aquaculture farms, and to reveal that information that you have just described which needs to be revealed, or not?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: I take great hope with the Cohen inquiry. Unfortunately, I've seen many, many government studies get sidelined so I'm not confident. But they do have the power, as I understand it, to get these disease records and to question some DFO scientists who I think need to be questioned.
I am concerned that they chose a biologist who has already published a report where he gives his own theory as to what happened to the sockeye salmon. I think they should have picked a biologist who was neutral.
But that said, British Columbia has put a lot of faith in this. There are a lot of people eager to get to work on it. Judge Cohen seems to be a very thorough and excellent choice. So I am optimistic, but their choice of biologist is a concern to me.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Monsieur Lévesque.
[Français]
M. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): Merci, monsieur le président. Bonjour, madame Morton.
À la suite de la décision récente de la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique, un nouveau régime doit être mis en place pour régir l'aquaculture d'ici décembre 2010. Je vais poser mes questions en rafale, parce que je n'ai que cinq minutes, et ce n'est pas long.
Selon vous, le gouvernement fédéral sera-t-il prêt pour cet échéance? Deuxièmement, avez-vous participé à la consultation tenue en préparation des nouveaux règlements fédéraux sur l'aquaculture? Ensuite, le gouvernement fédéral n'avait-il comme autre choix que de procéder dans ce dossier? Par exemple, une seule autre application aurait pu changer la décision du gouvernement fédéral de procéder dans le dossier. Je vous laisse la parole.
[English]
Ms. Alexandra Morton: I'm not confident that they'll be ready, particularly since first nations seem to have opposed the most recent draft. I have participated, just as a member of the public, in those consultations.
I have said to Mr. Swerdfaeger again and again, he has to consider that it might not be possible to have this industry in the ocean and also have wild fish. There might not actually be a way to manage it as long as they use the net pens.
I'm sorry, I didn't really grasp the third question.
º (1620)
[Français]
M. Yvon Lévesque: Le gouvernement fédéral avait-il seulement un autre choix que de passer à l'action dans ce dossier?
[English]
Ms. Alexandra Morton: As I understand it, the federal government can do whatever they want with this industry. I personally would really like to see the Fisheries Act applied and if they don't meet that bar, if they simply need to get out of the ocean, I think the support that would have would be enormous. But at the same time, take care of those families, because government, as I see it, made a big mistake here. We were warning them.
I personally was warning them since 1989, don't put them on the migration route. If you want to gamble with this industry, fine, but you've got to have your ace in the hole. You want to have the wild fish coming and going undisturbed. But because government did not listen to anybody, and we've gotten to this point, there are now families who have mortgages and they're very dependent on the industry, so, please take care of them.
But I think the federal government does have a broad range of choices and one of them is simply that there is no right way to do the wrong thing and holding these things in net pens, Atlantic salmon on top of it, is incredibly risky in what we know in the world of biology today.
[Français]
M. Yvon Lévesque: Merci, madame Morton.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Donnelly.
Mr. Fin Donnelly: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Morton, I'm going to ask you three or four questions. I have a short amount of time, so you will only have a short amount of time to respond.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: I'll try to remember them.
Mr. Fin Donnelly: Okay.
You commented earlier about SLICE and you said it was a temporary solution. I'm wondering what, in your mind, is a permanent solution?
A second part of that question is in working with the fish farm companies or the aquaculture companies, I'm wondering how available they're making critical information that you feel is important that the public should know? How available are they making that to you and to the public? That's a couple of questions and I have two others.
The committee is considering initiating both the study on aquaculture across Canada and a study on the Pacific salmon in B.C. I'm wondering what advice you would give the committee before it proceeds with these studies.
Finally, in terms of turning to the inquiry, over a 12-year period from '92 to 2004 there were four post-sockeye fishery season reviews, in other words, the number of inquiries that were called previously and a total of 96 recommendations were generated. In the Williams inquiry, they acknowledge that DFO had largely responded to the recommendations of earlier reviews. I'm wondering if you could comment on that and what your evaluation or assessment of the federal government's response to these recommendations in past inquiries have been.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: The permanent solution to preventing lice from becoming resistant to drugs and therefore killing our wild salmon is to put a complete barrier between the wild and farmed fish. That's the only thing that needs to happen here on all of the issues of waste and disease and impact. We just need a solid barrier. Just separate the two.
The salmon farms have been extraordinarily resistant in providing information, which I find appalling because they are operating in public waters and the public should know. My community is never told when they are applying drugs. There are all kinds of warnings on these drug bags about handling and yet people are eating food--clams for first nations, prawns and crabs in commercial fisheries and sport fisheries.
You should talk to Dr. Larry Dill from Simon Fraser University. He was heading up the B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum, a big study that went on in British Columbia with John Fraser. He quit because of the salmon farms' complete uncooperative nature. They do release a little sea lice information now, but to do scientific tests you have to have individual farms and dates and the way they clump things makes it impossible for scientists to use the data in their models.
I hope that you will look at salmon aquaculture or what is happening with our Pacific salmon on the west coast. People feel it is the same treatment that the East coast got with their cod where you lost an enormous industry with hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs.
My advice would be to go to the senior scientists in this province who have dealt with this and to retired government employees who have dealt with this. People have sent me memos, written for the last 20 years. The provincial Ministry of Environment fought hard to keep Atlantic salmon farming out. They did not want Atlantic salmon in this province. Even Pat Chamut, as director general of fisheries and oceans for the Pacific region, tried to prevent egg imports and gradually you can see how he was eroded and in the end allowed a lot of eggs to come in. I would go back in history a little bit and look at it.
In terms of the four reviews and the recommendations, I see the same thing in farming where there are all these recommendations made, lots of money spent studying and very little done, but I would argue those reviews did not include salmon aquaculture or the disease epidemics that were occurring there, and if that is indeed our problem, none of the recommendations that were taken will be fixing the problem. For example, reducing the commercial fishery has been tried. There was no commercial fishery last year and it has been very low for years now. If commercial fishing were the problem, that should be allowing the salmon to return.
º (1625)
Mr. Fin Donnelly: Ms. Morton, could you provide that list that you mentioned of retired DFO officials and senior scientists to the committee?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: I will.
Mr. Fin Donnelly: --and non-retired ones.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Weston.
Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Alexander, it's nice to see you here, having kayaked in your backyard before and met you and certainly admiring your perseverance. I understand you have been at this for some 30 years. I thought it would be good for you to know it was unanimous in this committee that we hear from you and we're all very grateful for your being here today.
You must be a person who looks at the glass as being half full rather than half empty or you would have given up long ago. You're at least joined by MPs from all sides of the House in the commitment for the sustainability of the salmon. We applaud you in that goal.
I'd like to go back to the question of the inquiry. It's something that you called for, and certainly that I called for on behalf of people in the riding I represent and other British Columbians. I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and my voice was one of many, including yours and, of course, an inquiry was called for.
You mentioned it is a government inquiry, but I just want to emphasize that it's an independent judicial inquiry and Judge Cohen has been armed with sweeping subpoena powers to ask anybody anything related to the Fraser salmon.
I want to make sure we get on the record that this was a courageous act and that we are at least in position to get the kind of answers that we need. You even said in your testimony that we don't know everything and you are modest and honest in saying that. Wouldn't you agree there are some really good things about this inquiry in that it is a judicial one? It is independent. It does have sweeping subpoena powers.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Yes, and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
British Columbia is very happy that this inquiry is happening. They are trying to take some faith in it because they're so frightened at this point. The issue of the Fraser sockeye has brought together warring factions from all sides--it's quite remarkable to see--because they simply want these fish.
I've had very good experience in the courts because when I brought the jurisdictional issue before Judge Hinkson nobody thought it was possible to win that, but it was so clear to Justice Hinkson and I now have charges against a salmon farm for having wild fish in the pens. This judge is allowing us to go forward as much as he is able to, so I think that the judicial system can see this issue for what it is. They can lay it bare a bit more. They're not politicians so they don't deal with those constraints. So yes, I'm very hopeful.
In terms of seeing the glass half full, really I'm just a woman cleaning house. They're in the place that I love and I just want to see wild salmon survive. I want to make it very clear, aquaculture is not the problem, it's just the way this form of aquaculture is being run. So yes, I feel very hopeful and hope to be a part of that process.
º (1630)
Mr. John Weston: Thank you.
Let me share my time with another woman who's also committed to the sustainability of the salmon.
Mrs. Tilly O'Neill-Gordon (Miramichi, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, it's great to have you here. I listened with interest to the great presentation that you did. I first of all have to say that our government is working hard and is very much aware of this concern, mainly because of the fact that we have two great representatives on this committee in the name of Randy Kamp and John Weston who certainly put your cares forth to make sure that we all know the concerns of the British Columbia people.
I was looking at the fact that the Pacific Salmon Forum has made several statements and I'm wondering about such things as the number of sea lice on wild juvenile salmon has been decreasing in the Broughton region since 2004. I'm wondering if you agree with the forum.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Absolutely. There were some great recommendations out of that, and I agree, the number of lice has been reduced. It's due to the drug, which is unfortunately a temporary situation. That's the concern. But the most profound recommendation that they made was, the way the limit on lice right now is they have to stay less than three motile lice per farm fish, but what the forum said is the wild fish outside the pens have to have natural levels of sea lice on them. That's a step in the right direction because if you have three motile lice per farm fish and you have two million farm fish, that's going to be too many. So the way they suggested measuring it on the wild fish, that is a true and valid measurement that could actually save wild fish. Unfortunately it has not been implemented.
Mrs. Tilly O'Neill-Gordon: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Blais.
[Français]
M. Raynald Blais: Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.
Tout à l'heure, lorsque je suis intervenu pour la première fois, je vous ai posé ma série de question. L'une me trottait dans la tête. Elle concernait le loup marin. Je viens de retrouver un article publié aujourd'hui dans le Globe and Mail, qui identifiait le phoque comme un prédateur assez important, relativement au saumon dans l'Ouest.
Je voulais seulement vérifier avec vous si vous aviez une opinion là-dessus. Est-il considéré comme un prédateur? On sait très bien qu'il est beaucoup plus nombreux qu'il ne l'était auparavant. Je suis du Québec. On connaît davantage le loup marin chez-nous, sauf que, de ce que je peux en apprendre, il y a aussi expansion du troupeau de phoques dans le Pacifique. En ce sens, j'aimerais vous entendre sur la prédation du phoque, relativement à la ressource du saumon.
[English]
Ms. Alexandra Morton: That's a very good question. Fortunately, I just attended a presentation from Dr. Andrew Trites on this exact subject, in terms of the Fraser sockeye.
What he said was twofold. One is they pick up the scat from seals and they analyze what these seals have been eating. In general, the harbour seals of British Columbia are eating 3%, 3% of their diet is salmon, which is very small, but there are specific locations and river mouths.
Seals are like dogs, they're very smart, and if they get onto something, they'll stick with it. In some instances, there are seals that have learned to target certain populations of salmon, in which case, as I understand it, they are doing enormous damage, but these are very localized situations that would need to be addressed individually. But if you were to go out and kill all the seals today, you would not be protecting salmon, because what they are actually eating is different fish.
One thing he brought up is one of the fish they prey heavily on, hake, is actually a predator of juvenile salmon. So the seals are helping reduce another predator. Now, you have to be very careful with these natural systems, but, no, seals are simply not responsible for what's happened to the Fraser sockeye.
º (1635)
[Français]
M. Raynald Blais: En terminant, dans l'article du Globe & Mail en question, on fait état d'une étude en Écosse — je me permets de le lire sans nécessairement l'avoir regardé d'avance — qui a démontré que d'enlever un seul phoque de la rivière Morriston — je ne sais pas si j'ai la bonne prononciation, mais c'est écrit comme cela — avait permis d'augmenter la pêche sportive de 17 p. 100. Dans d'autres rivières, les résultats variaient d'une augmentation de 1 à 33 p. 100 pour le saumon.
J'aimerais vous indiquer que sur la côte Est, le phoque gris, qui est autre que le phoque du Groenland étant donné que la chasse est contrôlée sur ce dernier, très bien contrôlée d'ailleurs et peut-être trop au goût de certains, est vu davantage dans nos rivières. On le voit par rapport à l'espèce du homard et de plus en plus par rapport à celle du saumon.
Dans l'article en question, il est fait état de cette observation. Qu'en pensez-vous?
[English]
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Like I said, these are localized effects—and I have no doubt of that study—but you have to talk to the scientists who've been following these animals around. Dr. Trites' whole life is studying pinniped, which is seals and sea lions, and he is telling us, from looking at their scat, which is a nasty business, but they do it, 3% of their diet is salmon. So if you were to take the seals out and allow the hake to rise in population, it's very likely that you would cause more damage than if you left the seals there, which is natural. But that said, there are specific rivers where I understand there's problems, and I would say that would require individual management, but overall they are not the problem we're having with our Pacific salmon.
[Français]
M. Raynald Blais: En terminant, j'aimerais indiquer qu'il faut faire attention — vous le savez très bien — aux chiffres, aux statistiques. Comme vous le dites, trois pour cent de la consommation du phoque en question, c'est le saumon. On a parlé de la même chose par rapport à la morue.
Cependant, il ne faut pas oublier que le phoque, notamment le phoque du Groenland, lorsqu'il mange une morue, il ne mange pas toute la morue au complet, mais une petite partie uniquement. C'est pourquoi le faible pourcentage de consommation du phoque par rapport à la morue n'illustre pas nécessairement très bien la corrélation qu'il peut y avoir entre le phoque prédateur de morue et la quantité exacte qu'il mange.
En tous cas, cela est à relativiser.
Merci beaucoup, madame.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Donnelly.
Mr. Fin Donnelly: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Morton, just one last question.
The B.C. sockeye salmon fishery is currently being assessed to be certified as a sustainable fishery by the Marine Stewardship Council, MSC, and there's been objections to this certification that have been filed with the accreditation body in the past little while, and it's based on the sockeye collapse of the summer of 2009. I'm wondering if you can provide any comment on this. I know this is different from the sea lice topic and the fish farm topic, but it's potentially related to this collapse. But, overall, the problem of certifying a fishery, I'm wondering if you could comment at all on this.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: If they certify a fishery that's been in decline for 10 years with virtually no commercial fishing for the last three years, we could take from that that this certification is invalid.
Because if you look to Alaska, they're actually having record runs of sockeye and that's where you might want to go certify a fishery. Or the western Pacific, Russia, they are seeing huge runs of wild salmon so the certification process is--
I don't know how they could possibly certify the Fraser sockeye in the state that it's in right now. It's near extinction.
º (1640)
Mr. Fin Donnelly: Thank you.
I guess if I have a little time remaining, I'm wondering if there is any last messages that you wanted--I know that we're running short on time--the committee to hear, if you have any final thoughts that you could leave us with.
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Thank you. You read my mind.
I've been out and about in Archipelago, a beautiful remote area for 26 years and I just want to tell you that the oceans are not dying.
When I arrived there, there was no humpback whales. There's now 27 whales that use the area. The sandlance population, which is a very, very energy-rich fish, is bigger than it's ever been. Nobody's seen it this big. We got pilchard back who were gone for 90 years. The Pacific white-sided dolphin is in the thousands.
A lot is going right in our oceans, and the fact that our salmon are declining when the western Pacific and the Alaskan ones are not is an indication that we can fix this.
I so hope you let us do this because if fishery management became more localized and DFO became an organization that worked with people, and you took the scientists out of the political body of DFO and you let them be what they were as the Fisheries Research Board. They were cutting edge. They were the leading fishery scientists of the world.
If we just took a few simple steps here, Canada could be an example around the world of how we could have our fish and our communities could thrive. Your committee, having me here today, thank you so much. I see a lot of movement happening and I'm hoping we can all follow through and solve this because it's not about anybody losing. We all win. The Norwegians, if they've got to go home, they'll still fish farm. Those European shareholders will be fine. It's the communities of British Columbia we need to be concerned about, so thank you so much all of you.
The Chair: Thank.
Mr. Allen.
Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and Ms. Morton, thank you for being here.
I just have a couple of questions.
One is related to the theory and the reasons for the changes in the salmon runs. The second one is your opinion on regulation.
I guess the first thing is there was an article in the North Island Gazette where it talked about the record pink returns. One of the things it points to, and I'll just refer to the article--because I'm sure you're aware of it--that predicted the demise of the pinks by 2011 and pointed at fish farms for increasing numbers of sea lice that, in turn, threatened juvenile salmon. The study concluded that that sea lice typically kill over 80% of the fish in each salmon run, and if sea lice infestations continue, affected pink salmon populations will collapse by 99%. Obviously the article goes on to say that didn't happen because of the positive returns.
One of the things that was commented that the extinction forecast hasn't materialized because fish farms are doing a better job of managing their farms and the extinction prediction is based on nothing changing. However, Ian Roberts, spokesman for Marine Harvest that operates the majority of the farms, said that they hadn't changed their process in years with respect to what they were doing on sea lice. He said they'd been consistent. They're still operating and treating for sea lice in the same way and are consistent. There's obviously another factor in place.
I'm just asking is there, on that basis, other theories behind this? My second question is based on the fact that you do disagree with the aquaculture management regime, what in your opinion is the best jurisdiction in the world in terms of regulation?
Ms. Alexandra Morton: Ian Roberts needs to go under oath.
There's an alliance of environmental organizations in British Columbia called the Coastal Lines for Aquaculture Reform. They have spent millions negotiating with Marine Harvest. This includes the David Suzuki Foundation, Living Oceans, Georgia Strait Alliance--large organizations. They, I would say, arm wrestled—people may use other terms—Marine Harvest into a stringent drug treatment program. When I first found the sea lice infestation in 2001, that was not the case. Now Ian Roberts would need to check his words carefully to assure you that the drug treatment regime on Marine Harvest was the same in 2001 as it is today. I think he should really be careful with what he has said there.
In terms of what jurisdiction this has worked in: none, zero. It's really an interesting phenomenon. Norway is very different from British Columbia because they actually want people on every single kilometre of their coastline, on every island, and the public don't seem as attached to wild salmon so there hasn't been the economic issues with salmon farming. There are actually farms everywhere and they seem a little bit more accepting of it. Except now, because the lice are becoming resistant to all the drugs, there is a lot of conflict going on. I don't know. They're trying to pick at this moment between wild and farmed fish.
Interestingly enough, John Fredriksen, the wealthiest man in Norway, also the largest shareholder of Marine Harvest, for some reason did a press conference on a river mouth where he says to get this fish farm away from his river. Well, of course, we're all wondering about our river. Georg Rieber-Mohn, the ex-Attorney General of Norway, said “get them away from the rivers”.
In 1991 there's a record in the Hansard where John Lilletun from the Norwegian parliamentary Committee on the Environment spoke before some federal committee and he said that they had very strict laws in Norway. Fish farmers said “we will d
 
The Vancouver Sun, 8th April 2010

NDP on fish farm controversy: "There is some movement happening."

By Vaughn Palmer

New Democrat Robin Austin, who headed a legislature committee on the fish farm controversy during the second term of B.C. Liberal government, sees signs of movement on the controversy over in-the-ocean containment.

Or so he told me during a recent interview on Voice of B.C. on Shaw TV.

The exchange began with a question on tape from Bill Tieleman: "Robin, what ever happened to the aquaculture committee on salmon farm fishing that you chaired and the report that you issued? Did they turn it into fish-farm feed pellets?"

"Sadly, very little happened with it," said Austin. "I think the only thing they actually implemented was a moratorium on new fish farms on the north coast -- north of Cape Caution -- which was a huge victory for those of us who lived up north and want to protect the Nass and the Skeena and the Stikine rivers. However, for the bulk of the problem -- which of course is in southern B.C. -- it made no difference at all."

Having said that, Austin then noted a sign of hope: "I should point out, though, that since that report came down, some of the large fish farm companies -- along with the environmental organizations that have spent many years fighting them -- have now come to a point where they're speaking, and some of the companies are actually putting in place trials of the kinds of technology that we suggested that the government needed to force the industry to go to. There is some movement happening."

Austin was referring to the committee's recommendations on containment. Currently the farms are in the ocean and open to the surrounding waters, incurring risk of both pollution and spread of disease. Some critics have called for the farms to be moved onto dry land. The Austin committee rejected that as too expensive in terms of energy consumption.

"Ocean-based closed containment," said Austin when I asked him about the committee preference on containment systems. "Not on the land -- ocean-based. The reason being that if you move these things onto the land, it requires so much energy to pump the water and to keep it clean that it becomes completely economically non-viable. The idea was to try and create some kind of barrier between the farmed and the wild and have it still in the ocean so you haven't get this huge energy expense."

And it is those technologies that are in the works here in B.C.?

"Absolutely," Austin replied. "These are the kinds of technologies that are now being looked at by some of the companies."

The NDP MLA for Skeena also commented on the federal-government-appointed commission, headed by a Supreme Court judge, that was recently named to examine the decline of wild salmon stocks in B.C. Does he think that will be a useful exercise?

"I hope so," said Austin. "In fact, we contacted them this week, and we're sending our report to the commission to see if they can do anything with it and to see whether it will help their cause into trying to find a link between the loss of salmon and fish farms."

http://communities.canada.com/VANCO...ot-there-is-some-movement-happening-quot.aspx
 
Seafood Intelligence, 14th April 2010

BC FOI farmed salmon health data: Industry concerned data will be manipulated to “create undue fear”

Raw data released Monday (April 12th) by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands in Canada's Pacific province of British Columbia confirms what their annual fish health reports have already reported: that B.C.'s farmed salmon are healthy, hails the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA). The results of a Freedom of Information (FoI) request released Monday show “absolutely no findings of ISA” [the infectious salmon anaemia viral disease which has caused havoc in the world's 2nd largest salmon producing nation – Chile – for the past two years and impacted the strength of prices internationally] argues the BCSFA. The low number of mortalities that are recorded is caused by natural, locally-occurring illnesses picked up only after salmon are introduced to sea pens, they say. No IPNv was detected but there were positive detection of the IHN and VHS, Pacific strain, viruses on some of the 1326 fish on which disease analysis was carried out.

“We are concerned that this data will be manipulated to create undue fear amongst the public,” said Mary Ellen Walling, BCSFA executive director, in a statement. “The salmon farming industry is already more transparent with its information than any other food producing industry in the province - and it's important that those numbers are explained responsibly.”

The FOI release was however long-resisted by the authorities and salmon famers. It was only in a 37-page landmark decision on March 1st 2010 (Order F10-06) – following a protracted 4 year legal battle led by environmental groups T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and Ecojustice - that BC’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner decided the Canadian province's Ministry of Agriculture and Lands could no longer conceal records of sea lice infestations, based on information gathered during visits to salmon farms, and ordered the government to make them public.

More details below...


“BC Salmon Farmers are committed to increased transparency when it comes to information about the industry's operations. The provincial fish health program is an example of the success of that spirit of co-operation,” said Walling.

The data released April 12th is the independent verification points for the extensive records maintained by industry, the BCSFA says. The province collected this information during regular visits to farm sites and uses it to audit the database and produce the annual report for the public.

In compliance with a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPP) decision adjudicated by the provincial Privacy Commissioner, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) has released electronic farm-by-farm database information to the applicant, T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation.


The FOIPP request originated in 2004 and the release includes electronic farm-by-farm database information of sea lice data from the Broughton salmon farms between October 2002 and August 2004, as well as all health data collected from marine salmon farms in B.C. that MAL acquired during its Fish Health and Lice Audit and Surveillance Programs over the same period. The information this data provides has been publically reported through the Ministry’s 2003-2005 Annual Fish Health report.


The Ministry’s raw electronic data is analyzed by qualified veterinary professionals and summarized in the Annual Fish Health Report. The Fish Health Audit and Surveillance (FHAS) component of the Ministry’s Fish Health Program consists of three main tasks:

1) Provincial fish health bio-technicians monitor activities and review health-related records at marine salmon farms, as outlined in the farm’s Fish Health Management Plan;

2) Provincial bio-technicians collect samples from recently dead or moribund fish to facilitate active surveillance for bacteria, viruses and parasites and to determine farm-level disease events; and,

3) The audit results are compared to industry reports generated through the B.C. Salmon Farming Association (BCSFA) database.

The released data is comprised of 216 salmon health audits conducted between October 2002 and August 2004, as well as collected diagnostic samples for disease analysis from 1326 fish.


Expected survival rate for farmed fish reported from B.C. salmon farms ranges from 94 to 98%. All farms categorize their dead fish, giving probable explanation for the cause of death. Roughly 10% of these freshest carcasses are used as indicators of any active disease that may be present in the robust living population.


These fresh carcasses are selected and tested by MAL for cause of death and a number of specific diseases and pathogens of concern (i.e. bacteria and viruses Executive Summary recognized federally and internationally that may affect fish movement and trade). The October 2002- August 2004 specific findings for these disease agents were:


*

Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISAV) – none detected from 1326 fish
*

Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) - none detected from 1326 fish
*

Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV) - 27 positive detected from 1326 fish, representing the end of the 2001-2002 outbreak
*

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHSV, Pacific strain) - 11 positive from detected from 1326 fish
*

Piscirickettsia salmonis - 9 positive from detected from 1326 fish


All disease findings from the audit of salmon farms have been previously reported in British Columbia and the bacteria and viruses found are natural common infections of wild and farmed fish in B.C. waters. For Atlantic salmon carcasses tested, 70% of audit cases found ‘no infectious disease’ (at the farm-level). Of the infectious disease found in some carcasses, the main diagnoses were bacterial kidney disease (8%) and mouth myxobacteriosis (6%). For farmed Pacific salmon carcasses tested, 66% of the audit cases found ‘no infectious disease’ (at the farm-level), and the main disease diagnoses were bacterial kidney disease (32%) and the gill parasite Loma (4%).


The Province established a comprehensive health management program for salmon aquaculture in 2001 and the Ministry has been verifying compliance and assessing performance of the program since October 2002. The Province’s Fish Health Program has been reviewed by independent epidemiologists on two occasions in 2006 – once by the non-profit Centre for Coastal Health, and a second time by AusVet Animal Health Services, an epidemiology consulting group. The Centre for Coastal Health stated in its evaluation: “The data collected as part of the B.C. Fish Health Audit and Surveillance Program exceed international standards to demonstrate freedom of disease and the level of fish health monitoring in BC is more comprehensive than in other parts of Canada and other salmon producing regions of the world.”

The provincial audit and surveillance program is recognized nationally and internationally as important and vital to trade, biosecurity and seafood sustainability. The program provides regulators and the public with a comprehensive understanding and confidence in the health status of salmon stocks raised on marine salmon farms in BC. The Ministry remains concerned with the broader consequences of releasing farm level data. Release of farm level data goes against internationally recognized best practice for audit and surveillance activities.

Those reports, available online, tell the whole story of fish health and show how the open sharing of information between farmers and regulators addresses questions about the status of farms. It is important that the raw data be put into context though, the BCSFA argues, which is why the annual reports are key to the real overview of fish health in the province.

Annual fish health reports are available online at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/ , up to 2008, the most recently completed by the province. Included is the 2007 report, which summarizes the health of B.C.'s farmed salmon during the out-migration of the 2009 Sockeye run, now being investigated by the Cohen Commission.

“Fish health is important to all of us. Not only as farmers, but as contributing members of B.C.'s coastal communities, we want to be sure both wild and farmed salmon remain healthy,” said Walling.
 
Back
Top