fish farm siting criteria & politics

11 December 2009

Fiona Cameron, The Atlantic Salmon Trust (AST) and The Sea Trout Group (STG)

These comments are supported by the Scottish Anglers National Association (SANA)

1. General comments

The AST and STG are opposed to the promulgation of a Standard which may foster public perception of farmed salmon as an environmentally sustainable product, while there is a risk that accredited farms may still be inflicting significant adverse impacts on wild salmonids and marine & freshwater habitats.

We would point out that the salmon farming industry continues to adversely impact wild salmonids even in countries which currently have (apparently) robust regulatory systems. The only justification for a new Standard is as a means of driving up standards considerably, and on a continuous improvement basis, and thus tackling the deep-rooted problems associated with open system salmon aquaculture.

a) The draft document, as it stands at present, risks simply standardising farming practices which are flawed, and represent the lowest common denominator. There are insufficient signs that the Standard will present challenging targets which will drive up standards in the industry. In particular, this relates to addressing the problems caused by: amplification of parasites and disease; escapes from marine and freshwater cages; pollution of the environment by fish waste and uneaten feed.

b) We feel that the indicators as currently drafted do not provide adequate protection from such a risk, for these principal reasons:

1. Many of the parameters and measurements suggested as indicators represent areas of knowledge which are incomplete and under-researched – for example, salmon migration routes, sea lice dispersal patterns, sea trout feeding patterns. It remains unclear how the Standard will deal with measurements set against a background of scientific uncertainty. The only pragmatic solution would appear to be robust attention to the Precautionary Principle in stipulating where accredited farms may be sited. A long-term solution would also require to make provision not only for a built-in review process for criteria and indicators, but also for revision of accredited status in light of emerging science.

2. Several of the terms used within the document are insufficiently defined: for example “environmental sustainability”, “sensitive” stocks. We would query whether a word such as “sensitive” can be sufficiently robustly defined to belong in a Standard which depends on detailed measurement of impacts.

3. The draft indicators require very substantial revision and re-shaping, to reflect the fact that many of the impacts which must be measured cannot logically or practically be measured at farm level.

It will be necessary to make provision for measurement of certain impacts (for example, lice infestation of wild salmonids) on an area basis, and to set farm-level measurements within this framework.

c) We can see nothing within the Draft Indicators which would be likely to encourage the salmon farming industry to move towards closed containment – a solution which we believe is, ultimately, the only way to ensure environmentally sustainable operations. It would be a pity to lose the opportunity to set the bar high enough to make investment in closed containment an attractive option for salmon farmers. The only way in which this can be achieved is to significantly strengthen overall operating standards within the industry, and to ensure that these are enforced, otherwise any accreditation scheme is in danger of giving a completely false impression to consumers as to the sustainability of salmon farming.</u>

d) The indicators do not currently acknowledge the importance of the impact on sea trout (Salmo trutta) populations. Since these fish 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, their interests must be specifically included.

2. Specific 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. We believe it’s also very important that where diseases such as PD (Pancreas Disease), which are no longer on the notifiable list in the UK, exist in farm stock, farms should be required to make information on their disease status available to all interested parties; there is clearly a strong link between sea lice infestation of farmed fish and heightened susceptibility to disease; this in turn links to greater problems in administering sea lice treatments (the fish may be off-feed, or the salmon farming company may judge that the fish cannot stand the added stress of a bath treatment). Since it is impossible to monitor the progress of non-notifiable diseases in countries such as the UK, it is important not to lose the learning opportunity which a full disease database would represent, in terms of observable patterns of disease and links to other factors such as lice infestation.

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. The suggestion that the individual farm should be required to show through environmental testing that diseases have not “jumped into the wild” is impractical and unenforceable, and should be 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. In some locations the lice dispersal model may indicate where more stringent standards are necessary to protect wild fish populations.

3.1.7b.There is a need for further research to gain additional knowledge of this, as “safe” area-level maxima will vary according to area. Again, in light of scientific uncertainty, a precautionary approach should be adopted.

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. Arriving at a pragmatic solution for adequately-resourced independent monitoring of lice on wild fish is the only way to monitor the impact of potential amplification of lice in salmon cages, in a manner which will gain the confidence of all stakeholders.
(See also point 8 in Recommendations)

3.1.8.b. We recommend acceptance of the suggestion (made by John Volpe) that a measurement of “number of fish” is added to the measurement of kilos of fish, since size of hosts is the significant factor.

3.1.8c. We do not believe that it is wise to attempt to define a widely-applicable ‘minimum safe distance’. It is impossible to make a generic prediction of a safe distance, given the site-specific nature of these impacts. This is complicated by the nature of the fjordic systems currently favoured by the salmon farming industry, due to their complex hydrography and exposure to strong winds and currents. Similarly, the most usual situation is for several salmonid rivers to issue into a single fjord or sea loch: do we therefore define distances from rivers or from the entire fjord? The example of damaging sea lice infestations being found on fish in the rivers of Trondheimsfjord (a fish-farm-free National Salmon Fjord) demonstrates the complexity of the situation. 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. This will, in the first instance, involve dealing with considerable scientific uncertainty.

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. We also believe that the Standard should recognise the potential for undesirable impacts from non native species introduced to salmon pens as cleaner fish, or as part of a multi-trophic aquaculture system.

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, including all Special Areas of Conservation with Atlantic salmon named as a primary or qualifying species, the use of the lice dispersal model and any known – and future - information on migration routes.
Recommendations

1. The AST and STG agree with other wild fish interests in suggesting that the Standard should provide a vehicle for moving the global salmon farming industry towards a strengthened Code of Practice, reflecting 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. 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. There are numerous precedents for a requirement to demonstrate continuous improvement in order to retain accredited status.

3. 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 cumulative effect of several farms in a given management area. 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. The logical conclusion of this is that it is unlikely that an individual farm would be accredited within a farming area unless all other units are included in the relevant area scheme; this level of control will be necessary in order to gain buy-in from wild fish and environmental interests.

4. 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. The costs of additional research required must be shared by the industry, and fair contribution to such costs should be assessed as part of the accreditation process.

5. 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:

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. The industry, in conjunction with wild fish interests (including Rivers and Fisheries Trusts where appropriate), must draw up a list of economically and genetically 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).

6. 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.

7. All certified farms must be required immediately to stock smolts produced in enclosed freshwater systems, or in systems that have no significant wild salmonid populations – either present or historical – and are situated within the same country; we do not believe that the Standard should condone international trade in live fish, due to risks of transfer of disease and parasites (particularly non-native parasites). Net smolt pens in freshwater pose a greater risk of introgression, due to serial escapes, than marine cage sites, given the life stage at which escapes occur. Norway already prohibits smolt units on rivers containing wild salmonids. This should be the compulsory basic standard for certified farms, since the technology for such production is available, and proven at commercial scale.

8. We are anxious that the Standard should not offer immediate entry to the accreditation procedure for farms newly established in pristine areas. We believe that the farm should be required to establish a track record in monitoring environmental and ecological impacts before entering the procedure. Similarly, any farm in an area where no such monitoring of impacts has hitherto been carried out should be required to demonstrate an established monitoring protocol – if only to determine a base-line against which to measure improvement or deterioration in factors such as the ambient lice burden of wild salmonids. There are precedents for such a requirement to build up a ‘track record’ – for example, the more robust organic certifications for terrestrial farms, both arable and animal-rearing.
 
I've been skimming over the responses on these proposed WWF standards from fish farm companies and associations. Some goods points, but it's interesting that when there is a standard proposed that they don't like - the typical response is: that "Each country has clear siting rules to avoid such habitats/taxa – that need to be respected." (e.g. Pamela Parker, New Brunswick Salmon Growers Assoc., Lise Bergan, Cermaq, etc.).

It appears to me that these industry PR types are trying to suggest that if you come-up with an international certification scheme that has more robust standards than the local regional/national regulators - then you are somehow "dissing" the local regulators.

That is a childish, unprofessional remark that totally (and purposely) ignores the reason for the development of any "new" proposed international standards (including this one)- which is that there is/was a mis-mash of ineffective and under-enforced local standards, and another larger, all-encompassing industry-focused standard was needed to be developed when minimum standards were either not developed nor enforced locally.

Look at the MSC (marine Stewardship Council) - they have developed a reasonably thorough set of criteria that use the results of the local regulatory regieme when available, but no matter where the impetus for monitoring comes from - there is a minimum that they require.

Either the industry gets the required info - or they fail certification. That's what all certification schemes do.

The suggestion that you can't ask for more info than required by local authorities, or they will act like babies and cry - is the real "dissing" of local authorities. Most professionals would welcome more info to base decisions.

That suggestion I find is also disrespectful to myself and the general public - by insulting our intelligence.

The only ones seeming afraid of more info is industry. Why?

Because it's embarrasing at times to see how bad and corrupt it is.

The suggestion that we HAVE TO: "respect local regulations" ONLY, and if we ask for more info we are "dis-respecting" local regulators is actually a technique that illusionists use - called deflection.

I call BS, as so should we all.
 
quote:Look at the MSC (marine Stewardship Council)

Yes the same MSC that says the Fraser River Sockeye are well managed and in good shape. I guess your BS meter only goes off when it comes to aquaculture.
 
quote:Originally posted by Barbender

quote:Look at the MSC (marine Stewardship Council)

Yes the same MSC that says the Fraser River Sockeye are well managed and in good shape. I guess your BS meter only goes off when it comes to aquaculture.
You might want to reconsider that and read the following, "very" closely! Pay particular and "close" attention to the second. It pretty much tells you "how" and "where" "DFO" and "Canada" is getting "all" "their" information... and how "they" are basing their decisions? Yep... can you say "Norwegian" "Fish farms"!

And "you" don't think there is a problem??

http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/quick-l...oceans-1/Sierra Club Sockeye Review Final.pdf
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/ref/aqua-es2009-eng.htm
 
And... that's okay, I keep telling my grandkids, "Yes, there is a Santa Claus, but then again - they are only 6 and 4?
 
Charlie, Did you read the Sierra Club report? Could ya pass it on to Morton? She might like to read the parts about where fish farms are causing the declines in the sockeye and have to move. Oh wait there isn't any. Not one mention of fish farms as a cause. Here, I'll refresh your memory:

"...Conclusion
The five factors identified that provide causal explanations for the declines in BC
sockeye populations are:
#56256;#56510; Reduced marine survival
#56256;#56510; Climate change
#56256;#56510; Logging impacts
#56256;#56510; Mixed stock fisheries interceptions
#56256;#56510; Adverse effects of enhancement
Logging is rejected as an explanation due to the limited exposure of sockeye to
logging-related impacts. Climate change and reduced marine survival are closely
coupled, as are mixed stock fisheries interceptions and adverse effects of
enhancement.
Two of the formerly large Central Coast sockeye populations in Owikeeno Lake
and Long Lake (Figure 7) declined in response to reduced marine survival rates
(Figure 14). These populations were also subject to intensive fisheries through
the latter part of 20th Century.
The Inventory section of the report identified a large number of sockeye stocks
that are depressed to various degrees. It would be simplistic to conclude that any
single influence on sockeye provides an adequate explanation for the depressed
status of the populations described in the Inventory. Rather, it is the synergistic
influence of several factors that threatens the long-term viability of many of the
weaker sockeye stocks.
The Inventory section lists out 38 depressed sockeye stocks, some of which are
critically depressed (&lt;100 spawners). In view of the large number of stocks, a
regional conservation strategy is required for the protection of sockeye
biodiversity..."

Yep I don't see a mention of Fish farms. Could ya please forward this to Morton. And maybe the rest of you sheeple should have a read as well.

BTW, contrary to the belief of the "farm bad wild good" crowd. Sockeye are in decline all over the province, even in places where there are no fish farms. How come this is never brought up by Morton. Cause it doesn't fit into her agenda.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Charlie, Did you read the Sierra Club report? Could ya pass it on to Morton? She might like to read the parts about where fish farms are causing the declines in the sockeye and have to move. Oh wait there isn't any. Not one mention of fish farms as a cause. Here, I'll refresh your memory:

"...Conclusion
The five factors identified that provide causal explanations for the declines in BC
sockeye populations are:
#56256;#56510; Reduced marine survival
#56256;#56510; Climate change
#56256;#56510; Logging impacts
#56256;#56510; Mixed stock fisheries interceptions
#56256;#56510; Adverse effects of enhancement
Logging is rejected as an explanation due to the limited exposure of sockeye to
logging-related impacts. Climate change and reduced marine survival are closely
coupled, as are mixed stock fisheries interceptions and adverse effects of
enhancement.
Two of the formerly large Central Coast sockeye populations in Owikeeno Lake
and Long Lake (Figure 7) declined in response to reduced marine survival rates
(Figure 14). These populations were also subject to intensive fisheries through
the latter part of 20th Century.
The Inventory section of the report identified a large number of sockeye stocks
that are depressed to various degrees. It would be simplistic to conclude that any
single influence on sockeye provides an adequate explanation for the depressed
status of the populations described in the Inventory. Rather, it is the synergistic
influence of several factors that threatens the long-term viability of many of the
weaker sockeye stocks.
The Inventory section lists out 38 depressed sockeye stocks, some of which are
critically depressed (&lt;100 spawners). In view of the large number of stocks, a
regional conservation strategy is required for the protection of sockeye
biodiversity..."

Yep I don't see a mention of Fish farms. Could ya please forward this to Morton. And maybe the rest of you sheeple should have a read as well.

BTW, contrary to the belief of the "farm bad wild good" crowd. Sockeye are in decline all over the province, even in places where there are no fish farms. How come this is never brought up by Morton. Cause it doesn't fit into her agenda.
Be glad to foward this to Alex! :D

Everything is In the eyes of the beholder? Maybe you didn’t read those “close” enough... as I suggested, read them "closely"?

Please try to get on the correct timeline?
Current date: April 2010
Economic and Socio-Economic Impact of Aquaculture in Canada - current report!
BC Sockeye Salmon Population Declines: Probable Causes and Recommended Response Strategies Study done in 2006

So, first, "Canada" is basing their decisions on information they obtain from the "industry" - that is clearly STATED! What “industry”? Norwegian “FISH FARMS”! That is not a fox in YOUR henhouse... THAT IS A "WOLF"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sorry to say, Canada (Ottawa) is so tied up with socioeconomics, that they have lost “all” all of “their” perspective of any “Big Picture” and only see British Columbia as “their” largest aquaculture producer! They are knowingly and literally trading off British Columbia’s “wild” salmon for “their” increased gross domestic product (GDP), which increases “Canada’s” gross domestic income (GDI). That equates to “Canada's” measure of "their" country's overall economic output. This might be considered better by some - for Canada, but what about British Columbia and the wild salmon? Take a closer look at that report!
Socioeconomics:
quote:
In many cases, socioeconomists focus on the social impact of some sort of economic change. Such changes might include a closing factory, market manipulation, the signing of international trade treaties, new natural gas regulation, etc. Such social effects can be wide-ranging in size, anywhere from local effects on a small community to changes to an entire society. Examples of causes of socioeconomic impacts include new technologies such as cars or mobile phones, changes in laws, changes in the physical environment (such as increasing crowding within cities), and ecological changes (such as prolonged drought or declining fish stocks). These may affect patterns of consumption, the distribution of incomes and wealth, the way in which people behave (both in terms of purchase decisions and the way in which they choose to spend their time), and the overall quality of life.

The goal of socioeconomic study is generally to bring about socioeconomic development, usually in terms of improvements in metrics such as GDP, life expectancy, literacy, levels of employment, etc
So, I believe... it is "very" clear Canada is putting Canada first here and is only thinking about Canada and how to increase Canada's GDP, GDI, and socioeconomics. It is obvious to the whole world, “Canada” very much considers aquaculture more important than any of British Columbia's wild salmon. Canada is making money on it! Canada has increased its GDP – increasing “its” GDI. Canada has received well over $200 million from the U.S. (Win-win for Canada) for “Canada’s” “wild” salmon and, do you really think – all those moneys have filtered down? And also, obviously “Canada” really knows what is best for British Columbians – just ask them, they will tell you BC’s “GDP” and “GDI” has increased through “Atlantic fish farms! Yep Ottawa is doing a real “great” job!!!! [:0]:([V]

Why the Sierra study? NOAA and everyone else is stating the Ocean condidtions were actually favorable those years. When Ottawa, DFO, and anyone else tries to tell you "due to poor ocean conditions", you can yell BULL SH*T!

The Sierra study actually shows where the Sockeye move when they encounter the warmer waters - That would be north! Look at the chart on page 22 (figure 15) of the ‘Sierra’ report. That “shows” were the Sockeye move during warmer SST. This particular study clearly states logging is rejected and please also note… this was “long” before the 2009 Fraser River Sockeye collapse was "supposedly" known about? If you do any research you will read the climate change only means the “Sockeye” move into the colder waters, also meaning their return will usually be later due to the increased migration route, and they typically weigh less from their long swim! The report also clearly states - and the point being it is not logging or ocean conditions, ocean SST, or ocean climate change! That kind of leaves, “marine survival”? Hmmm, "MARINE SURVIVAL", I can relate that to = "FISH FARMS"? Here again, the report and "all" the reports state the "ocean" conditions were fine, so let's rule out ocean conditions! However, if they don’t get to the ocean, they surely can’t survive the ocean, can they?

Bringing up the Fraser Sockeye, glad to go there!
We already know and have already discussed the water temperature on the Fraser during the out migration of the Sockeye… it was fine and well within survival tolerances! Bar any “unknown” diseases, which none has been found.… and knowing they didn’t get to the ocean, I guess we have to ask, why not?

When the Sockeye left the Fraser, the ones that turned "right" didn't make it through the "MARINE SURVIVAL" stage - THEY DIED! The ones that turned "left" did survive and returned. So, the fish turning right that had the low survival rate were tracked to the end of Strait of Georgia? Then they "suddenly" disappeared and never seen again! Why was that?

Concerning ‘Sierra Club’ not mentioning aquaculture, you will find it mentioned several times in their different reports and I believe Aquaculture would be listed directly by them as #3, #4, and #5 on the ‘Canada’s Oceans Action Agenda’:
• Immediately base aquaculture policy on the best internationally recognized scientific information to ensure that local ecosystems and species are not harmed.
• Accelerate implantation of the Oceans Act with adequate funding
• By 2010, ensure that ecologically significant area on all of Canada’s coasts is given interim protection from industrial practices that threaten their ecological integrity until marine protected area are put in place.

And then you have this:
quote: For species such as salmon, warming oceans are adding to the stress already caused by over harvesting. In fact, the greatest current threat to marine biodiversity remains over-fishing – recent studies have shown that the majority of large fish in the sea are gone. However, human activities like aquaculture and coastal oil drilling are also expanding and creating serious environmental challenges for ocean species.

We need to stop thinking of oceans as simply water and start seeing them as complex ecosystems that, just like land-based systems, can benefit from intelligent planning and the creation of protected areas. Unfortunately, Canada’s progress on meeting its national and international commitments to protecting marine life has been excruciatingly slow. We will need to turn the current ripples of action into a tidal wave of activity if we are going to meet commitments like completing a national network of marine protected areas by 2012.
http://www.tomorrowtodaycanada.ca/download/tomorrow-today-web.pdf

Now "your" BTW, contrary to the belief of the "farm bad - wild good" crowd. Farms not bad - "open pens" "BAD"! Just for the record, Sockeye are “NOT” in decline all over the province, even in places where there are no fish farms. You can and should start looking? WCVI, Fraser run migrating through Strait of Juan de Fuca, and most “all” U.S.… were as predicted or UP!

Pointing out the lakes around Rivers Inlet? Your are kidding right? Not a good example for you! [B)]
Maybe I need to refresh YOUR memory?
That fishery "totaly" collapsed in 1999 from DFO miss-management, yes "over-fishing"! Canada (DFO) turned over the management of the fishery in 1992 to others! But, did support them with the hatcheries! Those individuals actually received an award for their work in bringing back the Sockeye. Missing your point there?

Do you want to talk about “Skeena”? You’re right… Not on Morton’s agenda, why should it be? Absolutely, nothing to do with any farms creating any “known” problems, or are there? You know something we do not? I will be happy to discuss the Skeena issues? Based on information - it is a completely different story, again unless “you” know (being in the farming business). Are they hiding something there, too?

LASTLY... IF YOU ARE A BRITISH COLUMBIAN - YOU "REALLY" NEED TO BE SUPPORTING ALEXANDRA MORTON ON HER "GET OUT MIGRATION"!!!!!!!!!!!

"If you want to be represented, you will have to represent yourself."
 
The Courier-Islander, 30th April 2010

Get Out Migration sparks anger, support

Dan Maclennan

Alexandra Morton's Get Out Migration continued to spark growing support, criticism and publicity as it passed through the Campbell River region Tuesday and Wednesday.
Tuesday saw a small flotilla of protest boats visiting fish farms in Okisollo Channel, just north of Quadra Island, although the promised eviction notices did not materialize. There was a swim around a fish farm and a celebration/rally on Quadra. On Wednesday about 300 people gathered at Campbell River's Spirit Square to hear Morton and others speak. Atlantic salmon, escaped from Marine Harvest's Port Elizabeth farm last October, were piled in front of the company's door and lobbed onto a second floor balcony in the Discovery Harbour Shopping Centre.

"Atlantic Salmon do not belong in the Pacific," Morton said. "We're just returning them to the Norwegian company Marine Harvest. We don't think they made every effort to recapture them. It's been impossible to communicate with these companies by letter, by science. They require a physical demonstration like this."

Vancouver's Michelle Nickerson had a similar theme as she swam around one of the fish farms Tuesday afternoon.

"We were just trying to come up with creative ways to get the point across, to get a better visual picture of what these farms actually are. It might be a little bit crazy. Maybe doing something a little bit crazy is what it's going to take. What we've done so far just hasn't worked, so we're going to keep trying things until something does work."

By walking from Sointula to Victoria, Morton and supporters hope the Get Out Migration will pressure government and industry to pull open-net fish farms out of the out-migration routes of wild juvenile salmon. Morton told the Spirit Square crowd that the solution is to drive out the Norwegian aquaculture industry to make way for a closed-containment Canadian industry.

"There are Canadian fish farmers that farm many species of fish on land, fish that don't eat other fish," she said.

"They are having a hard time even getting the government to meet with them. The Norwegians, I think it's time for them to go home."

Morton repeated her call on government to protect workers and families tied to the open-net industry.

Supporting Morton's campaign have been a number of First Nations leaders, including former Homalco First Nation chief councillor Darren Blaney, who spoke at the Spirit Square rally. He said government must be told "it's time to move into closed containment."

"You have to ask them if they're going to put wild salmon first," he said. "If they're not going to support the wild salmon then they don't deserve your vote."

"Alexandra has been a Godsend to our people, to stand up for what is right and what is just," Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Kwicksutaineuk Ah-kwa-mish said Tuesday from the flotilla. "That is the protection of the wild salmon. It's time to move beyond open-net cages. It's time to move to closed containment."

But other First Nations support the industry. Sean Matilpi of the Kitasoo First Nation, watched the Atlantic salmon demonstration Wednesday. He called it misinformation. He said sea lice were around long before the fish farms.

"Some guys are for it and some guys are against it, but like I say, it feeds my family and I make a good living at it so I'm not going to put it down."

Missing from Wednesday's demonstration was any form of counter-rally from industry workers.

"There are activists like we see today that refuse to engage with companies, so there's no sense in getting out and butting heads with these people," said Marine Harvest spokesperson Ian Roberts. "They don't listen to facts. We have little time or energy for these type of stunts that were pulled today."

He said the march presented an opportunity to discuss real industry issues. He said many people aren't aware of the industry's efforts to work with stakeholders to minimize risks to wild salmon. Roberts said the call to remove fish farms from wild salmon migration routes is misinformed.

"There's no science that backs up their claim that those farms in that channel are harming wild sockeye salmon, which is their claim," he said. "But regardless of that, salmon farmers acknowledge that the risk is there, so we are taking actions in the spring, like we do for the pink salmon, for the coho, for the sockeye to ensure that our fish are healthy. Yes, we get sea lice transferred to our fish from wild fish. We need to manage our fish during this period and we think that there is minimal, if not zero risk, to wild salmon coming through."

Meanwhile the BC Salmon Farmers Association said Morton was spreading "misinformation about sea lice treatments, disease and the effects of salmon farming on wild salmon." Positive Aquaculture Awareness - which describes itself as "a grassroots group of aquaculture workers and suppliers" - ridiculed the small number of boats in Tuesday's flotilla, saying "if you blinked you would have missed it."

"There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that these few farms are a threat to wild salmon, yet they ask for the elimination of hundreds of jobs," president Cory Percevault said in a release. "This is outrageous."

http://www.canada.com/business/Migration+sparks+anger+support/2968862/story.html
 
Campbell River Rally, Protest - Norwegian Fish Farms "Get Out"

by Mark Worthing

Video bloggers Mark Worthing and Alexis Baker document the Campbell River Rally on April 28th in Spirit Square. Afterwords the rally marched to Marine Harvest to return Atlantic Salmon that escaped in October, and that were caught by Sointula fisherman Dave Kaufman.

Then Don Staniford calls for the resignation of Cermaq CEO at the front door of the company office, leaving the resignation letter on the front door.

http://www.salmonaresacred.org/blog/campbell-river-rally-protest-norwegian-fish-farms-get-out
 
The Westcoaster, 29th April 2010

“Unreal” Support For Tofino’s Wild-Salmon Walkers: Second Update



Cosy Lawson, centre, daughter Laterra Lawson, left, and Terri-Lee Manson, right, take a break on the side of the highway near Qualicum Thursday. (Keven Drews Photo)

(Editor’s note: This third version removes quotes from a B.C. Salmon Farmers Association press release and adds quotes from a Mainstream Canada spokesperson.)

By Keven Drews

OCEANSIDE — Truckers transporting fish-farm feed have given a trio of walkers heading to a May 8 rally in Victoria the “thumbs up” for promoting wild salmon.

Cosy Lawson, of Tofino, said the truckers have been honking their horns while passing her, her daughter, Laterra, 11, and cousin Terri-Lee Manson, 13, of Port Alberni. All three are participating in The Get Out Migration, a walk to the legislautre from several Vancouver Island locations to promote wild salmon.

The walk to Victoria from Tofino is about 316 kilometres.

In the coming days, the trio will meet Alexandra Morton, a well-known open-net fish farm critic, at the Qualicum River before heading south.

“It’s been unreal, unreal,” said Cosy Lawson of the support the walkers have received. “It’s not that us-against-them [conflict]. It’s everybody for the wild salmon and that’s really what we’re striving for…”

She said Tofino’s Sobo Restaurant has dropped off hot lunches for the walkers twice this week.

Others, she added, have dropped off donations, sandwiches and water.

Lawson said it’s not hard to keep going with that kind of support.

The Lawsons, a Yu?lu?il?ath (Ucluelet) First Nation elder, and a support crew left Tofino’s Village Green Sunday afternoon, making it to the boat launch at Kennedy Lake by 7 p.m.

They climbed Hydro Hill on Monday, eating lunch at the summit’s lake before proceeding to the rest stop at Taylor River.

Tuesday, they walked into Port Alberni – a distance of some 45 kilometres.

At 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, the Lawsons and Manson left Port Alberni. They climbed the summit, known as the Hump, and made it as far as Whiskey Creek.

All three planned to make it to the Qualicum River Thursday.

Alexandra Morton, a well-known open-net fish farm critic, left northern Vancouver Island April 23 and will meet the trio in Qualicum in the coming days.

Manson said the hardest part of the trip was the highway leading out of the Alberni Valley known as “The Hump.”

She said she has passed time by talking and listening to music.

Laterra Lawson also said climbing the mountain summits was tough.

“It gets you tired really quickly,” she said.

“They’re not out there alone,” said Lisa Ahier, Sobo co-owner and chef.

She called the walk “a very admirable thing to do.”

Ahier said she wanted to surprise the walkers who didn’t know the food was coming.

Thanks to the help of drivers heading out of Tofino, she added, Sobo was able to deliver chowder, cornbread, tofu pocket and pizza.

She said she wants to continue the deliveries next week.

“[We’re] just trying to get them a little bit of Tofino love on the road.”

While many may agree promoting wild salmon is a good thing, the province’s salmon farmers say they’re tired of coming under attack.

Tim Rundle, general manager of Tofino’s Creative Salmon Company Ltd., a company that raises chinook salmon in Clayoquot Sound, said blaming salmon farms for all the wild stock’s problems isn’t “fair or right.”

In an email to the Westcoaster.ca, Rundle said the constant barrage of criticism is tough on the industry’s workers, too.

“Every person working in salmon farming cares for the wild salmon and cares for the environment they are working in and have been working hard on a sustainable well-managed industry.

“I think wild and farmed salmon can co-exist and that it’s not an either-or situation.”

Laurie Jensen, a spokesperson for Mainstream Canada, Clayoquot Sound’s largest salmon-farming company, agreed.

“I think it is noble that Cosy is standing up for wild salmon and it is good to know that people care,” said Jensen. “We care about wild salmon too. I would like to invite Cosy to visit our farms and see for herself how we farm and see our standards and policies.”

Jensen said many factors affect wild salmon, and farmed salmon will take the pressure of wild stocks.

“The messaging ‘promoting wild salmon’ is a farce,” she added.

“When there is a campaign to harass companies and threaten their people, it is not about the wild salmon, it is personal. This type of behavior is unacceptable, and while we know that Cosy is not part of this militant action we do caution her about her choice of companions.”

Back on the highway and just outside Qualicum, though, Cosy Lawson said the walk’s been more than a stroll.

“The one thing I said I wish I had done more of was training,” she said. “I mean I did a little bit but when you think, ‘oh you know, we’re just walking.’

“Well, just walking is for about an hour and a half, and then it gets a little more trying and then it becomes quite painful…”

Laterra Lawson will turn 12 May 8, the day the walkers arrive at the B.C. legislature for the rally.

http://www.westcoaster.ca/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=7757
 
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 29th April 2010

Judge sets aside Wash. standards for salmon farms
SEATTLE -- A federal judge has set aside Washington's water quality standards for salmon farms, saying federal regulators didn't use the best available science in approving them.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency and National Marine Fisheries Service ignored the government's own recovery plans for endangered salmon and orcas when they found that a formal environmental review of the state's standards was not necessary.

Under the ruling Wednesday, the agencies must reconsider whether the farms are likely to harm wild salmon. If they do pose a threat - such as by the transmission of sea lice from penned fish to wild ones - the EPA could require stricter controls on aquaculture in Puget Sound.

Wild Fish Conservancy filed the lawsuit that led to the ruling.

American Gold Seafoods operates all eight salmon farms in the sound. The company did not immediately return a call seeking comment Thursday.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_salmon_farms.html
 
Comox Valley Record, 29th April 2010

Morton’s Migration critical to save wild salmon




Alexandra Morton’s Migration is a classic case of the power of one. But she needs many voices to make the cause heard.

Ralph Shaw
Alexandra Morton’s Migration is a classic case of the power of one – especially when the cause is a positive one to do with the mysterious forces of life – “Save our wild salmon.”

I have been negligent in becoming involved with this issue and the implications of the continued challenges for wild salmon as they pass through the waters that are impacted by the presence of open-sea pen fish farms.

There is much peer-reviewed science from all over the world that link sea lice infestations associated with open-pen fish farms and their attendant predation on small salmon that pass in the vicinity of the farms. It is a problem that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has failed to address. Also the provincial government has been of little help in mitigating the problem.

It is difficult to draw an analogy of our concern for our children and their safeties in the broader world after they leave our protection, and young salmon – but let me try. Take for example youth who leave home on their journey of life and discover getting enough to eat is a challenge. Suddenly they are attracted to the enticing smell of fresh roast beef, baked bread and pumpkin pie sifting through the currents of the evening breeze.

The door is open and spread out before them is a feast of unimaginable proportions. Of course they enter only to find there is a terrible price to pay. After passing through the enticing passage they are attacked by a throng of bloodsucking leeches that slowly and relentlessly suck their life forces from them.

Now imagine a school of salmon children recently emerged from their ancestral streams of Vancouver Island beginning their ecologically programmed journeys to their species feeding grounds in the northeast Pacific Ocean.

Along the way food is scarce and then all of a sudden their active scent glands tell them there is a rich source of food with the smell of anchovies, herring, zoo plankton, krill and all sorts of enticing goodies wrapped into one magnetic source beyond the inviting messes of netting through which their small size permits them to pass freely.

Oh! But there is a terrible price to pay for this life-giving treat, because lying in wait by the source of food are the voracious sea lice and their young, ready to attach themselves to the tiny salmon and suck their pulsing lifeblood.

This in a nutshell is why Alexandra Morton’s Migration message is critical to the survival of wild salmon in the waters of our rivers, lakes, streams and ocean. We must find a way for free passage past the murderous gluttony of the sea lice colonies lurking at the open-sea pen fish farms that clog the migratory routes of our small salmon on their journey to their ocean feeding grounds where they can grow, mature and return to renew their species.

Unfortunately my deadline for publication is on Tuesday of the week. The migration arrived in the Comox Valley yesterday and I missed informing you of a series of day-long events.

However you are not too late to take part in a series of Migration events leading up to the final event on Sunday, May 9 – Victoria Mother’s Day Blessing.

The following website gives a detailed schedule of the calendar of events along the remainder of the journey, www.salmonaresarcred.org. When I opened the website I went on to view the videos by Twyla Roscovich and I would recommend viewing them if you are not up to date on the issue.

If you wish to join the migration on Friday, April 30 you can do so by meeting them at Cowie Creek at 3 p.m. for a walk to Fanny Bay and a rally at the Fanny Bay hall at 4 p.m.

On May 1 the Migration continues to Qualicum Bay where there are a number of activities in the Qualicum-Parksville area culminating with a chili cook-off from 5 to 9 p.m. at the Big Qualicum Campground.

If you wonder why you should be alarmed as recreational anglers, think about the mysterious disappearance of millions of sockeye last year or the declining numbers of chinook salmon in the Fraser River system and possible direct implications on our 2010 chinook salmon regulations.

To save our wild salmon, we need direct action from the DFO – now!

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_north/comoxvalleyrecord/sports/92441449.html
 
The Westerly News, 29th April 2010

Tofino mother and daughter on 316-kilometre trek to Victoria in support of wild salmon

Stefania Seccia

A Tofino mother-daughter pair set foot on their long Get Out Migration expedition in the name of salmon conservation alongside horses, a horse-drawn carriage and many supporters on Sun., April 25.
Cosy Lawson and her 11-year-old daughter Laterra started their 316-kilometre walk to Victoria that will take approximately two weeks -- planning to arrive just in time for the rally in front of the parliament buildings on May 9.

"We need the people to stand up because we don't have very much longer before our resources are gone," Lawson said at the Tofino Village Green on Sunday to a large crowd of supporters.

View Larger Image

Cosy Lawson and her 11-year-old daughter Laterra started their 316-kilometre walk to Victoria that will take approximately two weeks.
The walk ties in with anti-fish farm biologist Alexandra Morton's walk with a young First Nation girl who left from Port Hardy on Earth Day.

The walk and protest is meant to send a message to the government to urge fish farm companies to move to on-land, closed containment salmon farms.

According to the Facebook group Clayoquot Sound Walk for Wild Salmon, the duo has made it through the heavy rain so far and met up with other walkers yesterday where they'll go to Qualicum Beach to meet up with Morton on May 2.

In a Victoria Times Colonist story Fish-farm foe to walk the talk, Morton intends to engage people in discussion and collect signatures for a petition asking the federal government to protect wild fish.

"We cannot match the corporate fish-farm PR machine, nor their lobbying power," she told the Times-Colonist. "So I am simply inviting people to make themselves visible by joining us on foot, electronically and by mail."

Morton expressed her worry that viruses that have wiped out farms in other countries will come to Canada and spread to the wild stocks.

But, the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCFSA) stated that "blaming salmon farms for the decline in wild salmon stocks is risking an industry that employs thousands of Vancouver Island residents, while avoiding the real issues around conservation," in a media release in reaction to Morton's walk.

According to Mary Ellen Walling, BCFSA executive director, the industry is conducting research on closed containment facilities, but an economical option has not surfaced.

"We agree that wild salmon are very important and need to be protected -- but there are a multitude of factors that are contributing to their struggle," Walling said in the media release. "Focusing on the removal of salmon farms is shortsighted and misguided."

The salmon farming industry is B.C.'s largest agricultural export, employs about 6,000 people directly and indirectly, and contributes about $800 million in the province's economy each year, according to BCFSA information.

But, Morton, Laterra and Cosy feel that if nothing is done to conserve the wild stocks than the salmon's extirpation from the region is not far away.

"For 20 years, I thought there was a place for this industry on this coast, but now I doubt it," Morton told the Times-Colonist. "I no longer feel there is hope of reforming this industry."

For more information about Morton's efforts visit www.salmonaresacred.org

http://www2.canada.com/westerly/news/story.html?id=5a67adb9-c675-495b-a320-ab6ef71ab6a4
 
Intrafish, 28th April 2010

B.C. union warns lawmakers about salmon 'migration' receptions

Ben DiPietro

A union representing British Columbia workers who process farmed salmon is warning some B.C. lawmakers not to roll out the welcome mat for a group of anti-farmed salmon activists who are walking throughout Vancouver Island in support of wild salmon.
United Steelworkers Local 1-1937 says it's disappointed some B.C. legislators have apparently chosen to presuppose the results of the Cohen inquiry into the disappearance of wild salmon stocks.

Lana Popham, B.C. MLA, and Fin Donnelly, BC MP, have made their bias against the salmon aquaculture industry well known, the union alleged in an "open letter" sent out Monday.

The union says on the front page of Popham's Web site is a glowing endorsement of Alexandra Morton’s "Walk For Wild Salmon." The union says Morton’s stated intention is the removal of five salmon farms, but "there is little doubt her real intent is to shutdown B.C.’s salmon aquaculture industry."

Morton is expected to arrive in Victoria, B.C., on May 8, after starting her trip on April 22, and Popham is said to be planning a welcome celebration for her.

Popham’s endorsement is based on bias and politics, not on science, the union says.

"It is our view that, as an elected MLA, Ms. Popham should take into consideration the existing science and the potential devastating impact on workers and coastal communities before endorsing one side of the aquaculture debate," the letter said.

Donnelly’s Web site reveals a bias against the aquaculture industry, the union alleged, as it highlights two questions he asks of the fisheries minister in the House of Commons. "In both cases, Mr. Donnelly assumes that the decline in Fraser River sockeye is due to salmon farming," the union said.

"The fact of the matter is that the cause of the declines has not been determined. Justice Cohen has been appointed to conduct an inquiry into this matter, and for an elected official to assume that the cause is due to fish farms is irresponsible."

The union says its membership and others who work in the salmon aquaculture industry strongly support protection of wild salmon and a sustainable salmon aquaculture industry.

"The aquaculture industry is already one of the most regulated industries in B.C., and there is no reason why both wild salmon and farmed salmon cannot co-exist," the union said. "It is apparent that workers and the communities that depend on salmon aquaculture are oftentimes overlooked in the interests of political expediency or personal bias."

In her defense, Popham told the Web site Public Eye the welcome is a "community response," and not a "partisan event."

"I understand their complaint," she told Public Eye. "But my community office is open to anyone in the community or anybody who wants to hold an event. So actually Marine Harvest is very welcome to come and do an event in my office as well."

Meanwhile, Mary Ellen Walling of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association last week sent Popham an e-mail asking her to reconsider her support for the migration event.

"I was surprised and frankly disappointed to see that you are publicly taking sides on this issue. I really felt that after your tour and meeting with our farm staff that you had a much better understanding of salmon farming and had broadened your perspectives somewhat," Walling said.

"As you know, we very much agree that wild salmon are very important and need to be protected, but there are a multitude of factors that are contributing to issues facing them. Supporting this focus on the removal of salmon farms is short-sighted and misguided," Walling said, adding she was "surprised to see that you are organizing this event out of your constituency office, at taxpayer expense."

http://www.intrafish.no/global/news/article267737.ece
 
Alberni Valley Times, 30th April 2010

It's time for change in fish farming, but it may have to be forced

Heather Thomson

Before I turned my attention to the newspaper business, I worked in aquaculture. As a newshound, my ears always perk up a little bit when my two professions collide, like they are these days with Alexandra Morton's Get Out Migration walk.

One of the reasons I got out of the industry is that it is exhausting constantly trying to defend what you do for a living. That's the way I felt in aquaculture (of course some days it's not that much better being a journalist).

I first got interested in the science behind raising fish when I was taking my bachelor of science in agriculture. I was majoring in animal science, and as soon as the program was available, I added a minor in aquaculture.

With only my pack on my back, I came west after I graduated with the dream of finding work on the research side of the industry. After five years, I decided to move on, frustrated by an industry that I believed didn't want to change.

Fish farm companies are famous for saying, "there is no scientific proof" to prove they are harming wild stocks. It really bothers me when people hide behind science, instead of using it to improve. The reality is, fish farmers need to change their ways. They need to move to contained sites, instead of sharing the water with their wild relatives.

The science may not prove it, but there are a lot of convincing arguments that the current system is causing problems.

The time has come for change in the industry. I believe we need to farm salmon. Wild stocks cannot supply enough fish for our plates, and so we must produce them commercially as well. We just should be doing it properly.

There is an alternative. Richard Buchanan, a professional engineer with AgriMarine Industries, has dedicated the past six years of his life to the development of a floating, self-containment aquaculture system. A model of the system, one-tenth the size, sits in his office in Campbell River waiting for funding to move it forward.

But no one has stepped up with the money he needs to make an operational pen to test.

Watching his work go nowhere is something he has experienced before. In 2000, AgriMarine got a grant from the province to come up with a land-based solution to the problems plaguing the aquaculture industry. Working out of Nanaimo, he developed a closed-containment system that worked. Unfortunately, the pumping cost proved to be too high, and Buchanan shifted his focus to a floating system he believed would be more cost efficient.

Now he thinks he has the solution, but companies are hardly beating down his door to use the technology. With a $1-million price tag per tank, it's not hard to understand why.

But these farms should be taking the leap into closed-containment. It would be a sign of good faith, and it would, once and for all, end the endless debate about who is to blame. People would have fewer reasons to object to buying farmed salmon, and who knows, maybe the wild stocks would start to come back.

What we need is for the government to step up and take the choice out of the equation. They need to put in place legislation that requires the use of closed-containment pens. Then the change will happen.
http://www2.canada.com/albernivalle....html?id=94fc6ce0-f670-4c93-aab8-8a9b7755c59e
 
Saw the Wild Salmon Survivors @ Big Qualicum Campground tonight ~~~~~~~ GO TEAM GO !!!

IMGP7780-1.jpg
 
Reward offered in N.B. lobster poisoning Module body

Sun May 2, 10:37 AM


NEW.BRUNSWICK (CBC) - N.B. Crime Stoppers is offering a reward for information about the poisoning of Bay of Fundy lobsters.

ADVERTISEMENT

Fishermen in Seal Cove and Deer Island reported catches of paralyzed and dead lobsters in November.


Tests found the crustaceans had been exposed to cypermethrin a pesticide normally used in agriculture or household pest control, according to the Journal of Pesticide Reform.


Environment Canada investigated, but couldn't find out how the chemical got into the water.


Crime Stoppers is now offering a reward, since cypermethrin is illegal to use in water.


"It would be very helpful to have charges laid and even a conviction, but I think all the attention brought to this issue is a real deterrent for anyone to use an illegal chemical again," said Maria Recchia of the Fundy North Fisherman's Association.


Crime Stoppers will pay up to $500 for information leading to the arrest of those responsible for putting the cypermethrin into the water.


Anyone with information can phone 1-800-222-TIPS.
 
Debra Brash, Times Colonist
Marchers walking from Sointula to Victoria to protest fish farming have experienced some frightening near-misses, says the organizer of the trek.

On Friday, as they walked through the Comox Valley, a car swerved straight at them with the woman driver yelling, said activist Alexandra Morton, who reported the incident to the RCMP.

"The alarming thing is there was another incident near Tofino, where they had to jump over a cement wall," she said.

The near-misses are a reminder of the deep divisions over fish farming in B.C., said Morton, a biologist and vocal opponent of open-net-pen salmon farming.

"There has been quite a backlash from salmon-farming people," she said. "We are concerned about salmon-farming families and we have to support these families, but there's too much in the balance. They are asking us to trade away our wild salmon, a resource anyone would want, for a few hundred low-paying jobs."

Mary Ellen Walling, executive director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, said it's extremely unlikely anyone in the industry would resort to yelling or driving their vehicle at the marchers.

"I can't imagine any of our workers doing anything like that," she said.

The problem is usually on the other side, with threats of vandalism from salmon-farm protesters, she said.

Salmon farmers are tired of being blamed for declines in wild salmon, said Walling, who accused Morton of giving out incorrect information on issues such as sea lice.

"We have been managing sea lice very effectively for a number of years," she said.

"We don't feel our farms are having an effect on wild salmon."

The aim of the walk, which winds up with a rally at the legislature May 8, is to pressure the federal government to move open-net pens away from migration routes of wild salmon.

At community events en route, ranging from barbecues to a swim around salmon pens and a delivery of escaped Atlantic salmon to Marine Harvest Canada's Campbell River office, supporters are signing a petition.

Support has been overwhelming, even in communities in the heart of salmon-farming country, Morton said.

"We are going to show Ottawa how much B.C. wants wild salmon."

Over the weekend, the Sointula group will meet with a contingent from Tofino, while on May 7, in Sidney, the march will be joined by a group that paddled down the Fraser River.

Walling said salmon farms employ about 6,000 people directly and indirectly in B.C.

jlavoie@tc.canwest.com

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Near+misses+alarm+fish+farm+foes/2977503/story.html
 
Wilderness Committee, 2nd May 2010

Salmon are Sacred Victoria Rally
On May 8th, come to Centennial Square and stand up for wild salmon. Join Alexandra Morton and people from all over British Columbia and send a strong message: get industrial fish farms out of our coastal waters.

Wild Pacific salmon have always been at the heart of life and culture on the coast of British Columbia. They have nourished the people and wildlife of this province. First Nations people, coastal communities, orcas, eagles, bears and our forests all depend on the life-giving feast of wild salmon. But now, as their numbers decline steeply, the very existence of our once-mighty salmon runs is at stake. It is time for us to stand up for wild salmon and tell fish farms to get out of our coastal waters.

On Earth Day, respected salmon scientist Alexandra Morton and a group of dedicated activists will start walking from Sointula in the fish farm-filled Broughton Archipelago to Victoria for the Get Out Migration. Along the way concerned citizens will be meeting her for rallies, and presentation, and public meetings.

Her journey will end in Victoria on Saturday May 8th with a rally to send a message to Ottawa: it is time to shut fish farms down. Join Alexandra and thousands of British Columbians from all walks of life and stand up for wild salmon!

Festivities start at 2:00 Centennial Square and include art, music and a wild salmon BBQ. We will march to the Legislature for rally at 4:00.

For more information about the Salmon are Sacred and the Get Out Migration, go to www.salmonaresacred.org

http://wildernesscommittee.org/what_we_do/salmon_are_sacred
 
Back
Top