Reply With QuoteMy question is now what are the fish farms gonna try to do NEXT
One for the wild salmon - BC Supreme Court delivers ruling in fish farming case
Feb 9th, 2009 4:27 PM
Media Release
Attn: Wildlife/Environment/Legal/Political/News Reporters and Editors
ONE FOR THE WILD SALMON!
Vancouver, B.C., February 9, 2009 - Today BC Supreme Court ruled that the BC government does not have the right to regulate salmon farms - the BC regulation of fish farms has become unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid. The fish inside the farm are now considered a fishery, not agriculture and thus the federal government has exclusive right to regulation. The court suspended the ruling for a period of 12 months to allow the federal government to bring in proper legislation.
On September 29 - October 3, 2008, the case Alexandra Morton et al vs the A.G. of British Columbia and Marine Harvest Canada, Vancouver Registry, No. S083198 was argued in BC Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Hinkson. Filed under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSBC, c. 241 the Petitioners sought a declaration that the statutory provisions of British Columbia's Aquaculture Regulatory Regime - sections 13(5) and 26(2)(a) of the Fisheries Act (B.C.) - be declared unconstitutional and of no force or effect by virtue of section 52 of the Constitution, which states that the regulation of Canada's fisheries is under the sole jurisdiction of the Federal Crown and cannot be delegated to the provinces.
When salmon farming arrived on this coast very little was know about it, today know much, much more. Just last week the provincially funded Pacific Salmon Forum called for restructioning of the fish farm regulatory regime now we have the opportunity to do something that makes sense.
The response from Alexandra Morton, lead petitioner in the case, is one of relief and joy. "Finally, the government agency in charge of fish farms is mandated to put wild salmon first. This has come none too soon as provincial management of fish farms is devastating many coastal communities."
"Because the province is not responsible for the oceans, the impact of fish farms on the oceans became nobody's business and this is how we got into this mess," explains Morton.
"The B.C. salmon farming industry is largely foreign and facing severe global economic and disease problems," says Morton. "What makes countries wealthy is their resources and wild salmon are an extremely valuable fishery to the benefit of the BC economy."
"I would like to thank my lawyer, Greg McDade, the hundreds of people who supported this via www.adopt-a-fry.org", says Morton, "West Coast Environmental Law and many others for their help. There is an enormous amount of work ahead, but this court has illuminated a path though the chaos. The war in the water should be over. Our wild salmon are down but they are not out!"
My question is now what are the fish farms gonna try to do NEXT
Same old/same/old that is to say apply to the Govt for 'relief'.quote:Originally posted by gimp
My question is now what are the fish farms gonna try to do NEXT
That means them/their lawyers having meeting after meeting with senior provincial govt officials, crying on their shoulders and looking for ways around this, all the while looking for sympathetic shoulders in Ottawa to do the same with.
Cry/b*tch/piss/moan is the name of the game for them now.
Shortly we'll see the paid apologists for releasing stories to the media about all the 'good people' in Salmon aquaculture and how hard done by they all are just trying to make a living Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.....[V]
Oh and of course the same flunkies/poodles (we all know who they are here) will start posting the same lies over and over and over.
So in the short term nothing will change in the long term who knows?
Another question is "[u]How does this change things in terms of the upcoming provincial election</u>"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good one Dogbreath. The noose is tightening.eman
Actually I suspect that this ruling will be overturned on appeal.
This has too many far reaching consequences in Federal and provincial relations though out the entire country to stand for too long.
Funny how things go, but the aquaculture people have been trying to get recognised as agriculture and away from DFO for years. This would have removed DFO from its conflict position. The only reason that aquaculture is in DFO is because way back when it all started in the 70's the only government department with any experience was DFO and its Hatchery people.
BTW, just because DFO has to put wild first, does not mean that they will stop any activity, including rec angling if they do not see it as a detriment. The ruling does not really mean anything with regard to aquaculture.
One bright light is there should be plenty of new jobs created at DFO to look after the fish farms.
I am flabbergasted as to how a judge can rule that a fish farm is a fishery. Kind of like calling a beef ranch a hunting preserve.
Put em on land and I'll call it agriculture[:0]
www.heavyhaulerfishingcharters.com
><
Sockeye,
Do you have knowledge of an appeal actually being made?
Incidentally, this is going to affect the industry in more than one way.
1)The growing opposition to this filthy industry can now bring its guns to bear on one administrative source (Dead Fish Organization) rather than having to deal with the frustrating deflection-tactics between to the two previous governing agencies.
2) Because the DFO now has not the Province to blame for it's own failure to protect Wild Pacific Salmon by virtue of its sanctioning of this horrific industry - which, as far as inflicting harm on our precious Wild Salmon goes, constitutes a genuine ENVIRONMENTAL HOLOCAUST - I fully expect the next court challenge (DFO vs the People of Canada: Dereliction of Duty to Protect) will hang the industry, once and for all!
Standing for Wild Salmon,
Terry Anderson
Wild Salmon Alliance
Terry,
No I do not know of any appeal, but it would seem logical that one would be launched simply because of all the other activites around the country which operate under similar agreements, and I am not just referring to aquaculture.
In addition, you should educate yourself on the licensing process. When the Feds signed the MOU in 1988, it allowed the province to oversee, or simply administer the licensing of aquaculture. It did not remove the DFO from its obligations, and the DFO are very active in the licensing review and approval process. In other words, every fish farm site has been granted by DFO. Without DFO approval, the province is not ALLLOWED to grant any license. So Terry, this "victory in the courts" really does not change much, just the name on the letterhead.
I am worried about you, you seem to be frothing at the mouth, maybe you should lay off the forums for a while. Take some time to relax. I am sure they will get to the fish farm issue right after all the cases referring to habitat degradation from forestry, urban debvelopment, commercial and recreational overharvest, etc....
You suspect or you are hoping it will be overturned. Also as you are flabbergasted as to something going against fish farming. You now know how I feel about your rhetoric and the denial of the Norwegian fish farm companies. These companies and their double standards in each country as they spread there filth. They only do what they are required to do nothing more. Not what is right. How about one standard all over the world Closed Containment.. Peace Outquote:Originally posted by sockeyefry
Actually I suspect that this ruling will be overturned on appeal.
I am flabbergasted as to how a judge can rule that a fish farm is a fishery. Kind of like calling a beef ranch a hunting preserve.
Gees Gimp, You are starting to foam like Terry. I suggest taking a break from the forums for a while.
If you read my post after that you would see why I suspect it will be overturned, and why it really doesn't change much. It is not the BIG Victory you all think it is.
Posting Permissions