fish farm siting criteria & politics

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Wolf,

Last time I checked this was a free country.

Just because you can't catch fish, doesn't mean there are no fish there.

RUDE RUDE RUDE :( lets not resort to this crap. WOLF has been a guide for 15 years in the area. All good fisherman know you cant catch fish if they are not in or around. If I am correct Alex and Wolf both live in that area. DO YOU? Is that your Home? IS IT? Where is your home? I admit, I do not live there but my family has a vacation home in the area. We love it and spend money every year on Scott Cove Hatchery and if I could.... I would live there all year long. However I am here in GOOD ole Yakima working so my father can retire and spend more and more time up there. You know quality of life in the later stages of life is important. You do live in a free country. Thank your lucky stars...... I do.
 
Gimp,

Give me a break. Is that all you got from my post? Did you read Wolf's? Where's your comment to him? What was so rude? I'm a Canadina discussing Candian issues with Canadians, what are you?

Concerned,

That is industry getting together to solve a problem, which the media turns into a conspiracy
 
This may sound a little odd coming from me - but I have to defend sockeyefry's legitimate right to disagree with stuff posted on this forum.

I believe his input is invaluable - even if it only serves to:

1/ educate us about the lies promulgated by the open net-cage industry.
2/ highlight the points within the issues, and/or
3/ entertain us.

Having said this; we need to try to maintain some decorum and respect – although it is tempting to personally attack each other.

I am guilty of trolling for emotional responses upon occasion. I try to keep it light and humourous – for the entertainment value. If I have ever slipped over the edge at times – I apologize.

I also think Wolf, Gimp, Concerned Angler and others have made a very legitimate point of acknowledging that each one of us has valuable experience to bring into this discussion – especially those most affected by the expansion and operation of the open net-cage industry. Those who live, work, or recreate in the Broughton – for example.

I am often very impressed with the observational abilities, experience, and deep understanding of the interconnectedness of the marine environment displayed by people like Wolf and other fishermen on this forum.

It seems that the best defense that the industry can manage is to try and deny these connections - even though their legal responsibility is to prove they are not having any impacts.

They've had over 30 years to do this - and the best they can do is to try and pick apart the substantial science now available that says we should seperate wild and cultured fish due to serious population-level impacts to the wild fish.

I think that we should all recognize, acknowledge and appreciate Wolf, Gimp, Concerned Angler and other fishermens insights that their experience and understanding brings into the discussion on this forum. It’s called respect and humility – something I have not often seen from spokespeople for the open net-cage industry.

I think that these industry spokespeople exhibit a certain kind of institutionalized arrogance, and a lack of compassion for others – including the salmon people.

That’s what sticks in our craws the most – that lack of respect and compassion – and is the real reason the fish farming industry is so opposed by those who know anything about either wild salmon and/or the ocean.

It’s got very little to do with those “terrible NGOs”, or those “terrible Alaskan fishermen”, or those “terrible eco-freaks”. That’s not only denial, but silly.

Fishermen, farmers, and loggers are most often the biggest environmentalists – and have a much deeper and richer understanding of the issues than any paid media hack or headhunter for the destructive open net-cage industry.


PS - thanks for the support, Wolf.
 
Agent,

So basically if I agree with you then I am a good, knowledgeable steward of the planet, but if I don't then I am dismissed as some industry hack, Right?

I cannot believe that you used logging and environmentalist in the same sentence. I also cannot believe that you list fisherman which are one of the prime 3 problems with wild stocks. You do realize that fisherman kill fish right?
 
No, it's so basically you're free to be ignorant, to be wrong, to have an opinion, to say what you wish, to think what you wish. But folks are free to call BS when they see it and smell it.

Fishfarmers and their supporters are part of the problem, not the solution. Just listen to the debate, sort out the BS and see the truth for what it is: No matter what, Fishfarmers will never stop their denials.
 
quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Gimp,

Give me a break. Is that all you got from my post? Did you read Wolf's? Where's your comment to him? What was so rude? I'm a Canadina discussing Candian issues with Canadians, what are you?

Concerned,

That is industry getting together to solve a problem, which the media turns into a conspiracy

You know where I'm from and yes I am not Canadian. We have been through this a few times now and I believe it is the consensus, to most members of this forum that it doesn't matter to them. Most people here know the love I have for the Broughton. I am passionate about the area. It is my Shangri-La, the place I want to retire and have my grandkids visit, to take salmon fishing, to watch Orcas hunt, breach and spy hop. Wait no Orcas in the Broughton the stupid predator sound devices the farmers used drove them out. I still hope to hear reports of them returning someday. To travel up the Wakeman and Kingcome Inlets to watch the black and brown bears feed on wild salmon. To head out to James point in Wells Pass at tide change to fish and see the all the life that goes on out there. To crab and prawn in Shawl and Moore Bay. To head out to Moore Bay in late evening and try an old fishing spot of one of my heroes Billy Proctor in hopes to pick up a King like he did back in the day. Lets face it if I was on your side you would be defending me and wouldn't care where I was from
 
quote:I cannot believe that you used logging and environmentalist in the same sentence. I also cannot believe that you list fisherman which are one of the prime 3 problems with wild stocks. You do realize that fisherman kill fish right?

I think you just demonstrated what I was referring to - lack of humility, respect, and understanding for users of the salmon resource. I guess it's easier for your industry to keep up the protective shield of denial while attacking others.

Why do think think that utilizing and protecting a resource as wonderful as wild salmon is somehow bad, sockeyefry? Yes - DFO has done a terrible job at times managing the resource, including impacts from fish farms - but that's something we all have to deal with.

It's not the killing of animals for food that's the issue - mankind has done that for thousands of years - it's the management of the resource using greed as a surrogate for sustainability that's the issue. It's the corporate influence on our democracy that's the problem.

Let me ask you this question - Do you consider yourself a steward of the ocean environment?

First Nations have been "killing" fish for thousands of years on this coast. Going to attack their utilization next?

Maybe we should only have the option forced on us to buy the artifical substitute - farmed salmon - as a better choice? Is that what you are saying?

I really don't understand your logic here.
 
You people have got to be the biggest bunch of nimby hypocrits I have ever encountered.

Farmers are in denial because they have to be. These agenda driven studies which are manipulated to grab headlines, to try the case in the court of public opinion are the reason. And you guys have fallen hook line and sinker for the BS spouted by Agent and his ilk.

If you were faced with someone who manipulated data to force the closure of your favourite recreational fishery you would be doing the same thing I am. You would be fighting back and trying to expose the errors. However, because you have bought their line, you fail to see the flaws in their science. You accuse me of the same thing you are doing.

After 30 years of salmon aquaculture in BC, None of the dire predictions have come true. No where is there a quantifiable impact on wild populations linked to the presence of a salmon farm. There is alot of speculation and maybes, but little else. That is the reality whether you like it or not. Shutting all salmon farms will change nothing with regard to wild salmon populations. The only thing it will do is put good people out of work, and BC will lose an economic oppurtunity.

You believe your science Agent, and are in denial about mine. I believe in mine and think yours is a self serving media fest.
 
Sock I have no problem getting fish THAT is not the problem I speak from being there and seeing what I have seen in the last 15 years of being on the water doing!!!!!!!!!!!I know you havent been there or you would have said so it is such a beutiful pristine area but not know it is being f%$@$^ by these fish farms.

I dont need any scentific paper to tell me so I SEE IT, theres a place we used to fish called sarguants pass it was a for sure to get hali in there not now there has been a farm in there for the last 12 years and there is NO way it has ever been fished out ( not enough people go that far up) I have seen on really calm days a nice oil sheen on the water coming out of that bay, and now your going to tell me nah cant be from there right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have lived it, been there, and done it.

All we ask is to put them on shore in CLOSED CONTAINMENT why is that so hard to grasp if you were concered with our resourse and wilderness you just dont get it do you!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wolf
 
AMEN! Thanks Wolf, Island Idiots:D
 
Originally posted by sockeyefry



Farmers are in denial because they have to be.

This is the bottom line Sockeye.

The denial will continue to the bitter end, and a bitter end it will be. I hope you are already planning your exit from this filthy industry. Aside from your unreasonable defiance and perhaps your last few posts you come across as reasonably intelligent. There will be lots of room for you in sustainable industries.
 
quote:You people have got to be the biggest bunch of nimby hypocrits I have ever encountered.

Does this signal the end of the intelligent part of the debate, sockeyefry? If you can't win the debate - have a spaz and a temper tanti? That's the way it feels to me, anyways. I was enjoying discussing the issues up until this point.

You know this comment also signals to me that you (as representative of your industry) are incapable of having compassion or even understanding of differing points of views.

The reason people become active and involved in issues that are outside the influence of the pillar of greed as the benchmark of righteousness - is because they feel that they have a long-term altruistic responsibility to future generations. It's the strength of our democracy - when it's used.

Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has".

That concept apparently is a foreign one to the corporate mindset - where quarterly shareholder profits are their litmus test of righteousness. The current corporate dogma is limitless expansion.

Growth is good - right? Faster growth is even better. If you can download costs onto someone else (like pollution from open net-cages) - you make more.

If you can kill-off the competition (in this case, the wild salmon) - even better. You then have a monopoly - a license to print money.

The reality is our planet has finite resources. Endless growth is unsustainable. Money (i.e. the currency of greed) is an inappropriate benchmark for a sustainable civilization.

We are in the midst of developing a new paradigm. The world has become too small to not notice, anymore. The age of corporate dominance is ending. The people who are more comfortable operating with it's culture are struggling to understand their roles, now.

Even the slave trade once used economics as a reason to justify it's continuance. We now all revile that concept. Such will be the footnote for the open net-cage technology, someday soon.
quote:Farmers are in denial because they have to be. These agenda driven studies which are manipulated to grab headlines, to try the case in the court of public opinion are the reason. And you guys have fallen hook line and sinker for the BS spouted by Agent and his ilk.
I guess I should feel special, sockeyefry. Nobody ever told me I had an "ilk", before. What's that - someone who agrees with you?

Stick to the peer-reviewed science if you suspect media manipulation. That means that some 95% of the science confirms open net-cage technology is probably a bad idea. It's just like the global warming debate and denial by the oil companies.

We have already discussed many of these peer-reviewed reports. To which you have tried to deny the validity of these scientific reports and the subsequent need for closed containment , sockeyefry. I can only assume that you feel safer in your state of denial.

At least you have demonstrated this industrial denial mechanism to the rest on this forum. For that - I thank you.
 
Ruminations, that may not be worth reading.

Apropos of nothing, I usually ignore this thread, every few days I'll read the last posting to see who's slagging who, but I was at the "grand" opening of our community's new super-sized Walmart today; frozen 'steelhead salmon' filets from Chile, smelt from Peru, prawns/shrimp from Thailand, redfish from Brazil, and I stopped there, didn't see any BC product.

Fish, and fish farming, is an international commodity. Producers will go to where the costs are lowest, environmental restrictions are least, and market access is favourable.

85%+ of BC's farmed fish are exported to the US, where, apparently, they will have no truck with the establishment of fish farms. We, in BC, are close enough to the US that the fish can be marketed fresh.
Not sure why we are willing to be the 3rd world supplier of 'fresh' salmon except that there is the short term gain of some 6-10,000 jobs (perhaps I overestimate the employment). But, the same thing occurs with the herring roe fishery - suck the future (roe) until the biomass reaches the lowest point where it can sort of maintain itself, or at least until it crashes (weren't the catches way down the last year or two?).

(Note to self: look for why the Americans aren't raising their own farmed salmon.)

The science, I think, is not 100% incontrevertible that the farms post a risk to the natural stocks, but the indications, Morton et al, are that the risk is there. Unfortunately the governing mentality is that a resource (in this case, so-called open water) can be exploited until you get to the point that it is either not economic to continue exploiting it, or the markets/consumers reject the product because of it's ethical/health/cost concerns. Part of this 'frontier' mentality is that it is ok to use/exploit a common resource (under license from the proper authorities, of course) until it is proven that the use of the resource harms the common weal. The onus is not on the exploiter to prove, beforehand, that their usage will not impact other users of the resource.

The fear, among the farmers, is of course that their costs will skyrocket if forced to move to a land based closed containment system. If that move were to occur, they would lose the ability to produce (according to them) a competively priced product. They might even have to relocate to more distant bases of operation (South America - Africa - Asia(?). Then they would lose the ability to charge a premium price for their 'fresh' product and be relegated to selling a lesser valued frozen commodity product, which, for the consumer, might as well come from Chile, Russia, or Uganda.

For the politicians and authority figures, it must be admitted, the two edged sword hangs heavily overhead (overneck). Deny the fish farms and 6-10,000 jobs disappear, mostly from the smaller communities and lesser industries. (Not to mention that the packing plants (read JimmyP, Canada Fish Co., etc.), have to revert to a seasonal and marginal activity. Not the best use of capital.
Approve of fish farms and the leftist, commie, beat-nik, green peacers (and the ever popular moderated media) come after you.

Those jobs are not always the best, or ones that you might aspire to (ever wanted to work on the "gutting" line?), or the highest paid, but at least they put groceries on the table. And it can be steady work, too. The natural runs of wild fish use to do that, but the f'ed up city folks put the end to those with their endless development of rivers, estuarine areas, and logging, so what else can the locals who want to stay on the Coast do.

Time for another glass or two of wine and to reflect on the injustice and inconclusiveness of it all.
Accountability and authority, without evasion, is in short supply in this industry (as it is in many other industries, imho).

[Warned you not to read this, didn't I.]

Peace, love, and natural fish.
 
Thank you Time , well put and spoken with poise and manners.
Incidentally in the local paper today there is a section by David Suzuki and Co. decrying the fish farm industry and calling for their movement to enclosed systems and allowing the return (if possible) of the natural stocks and their impacts to a bio system which is symbiotic in nature for the streams and rivers so far unspoiled (becoming very scarce) my take is that Mr Suzuki does not usually get involved in things that are wrong in the general sense.

AL
 
The Straight, 15th April 2008

David Suzuki: Fishing for salmon answers

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

Most of our food, whether plant or animal, comes from farms. A notable exception is fish and seafood, much of which is caught from wild ocean stocks. That’s starting to change, though, as aquaculture plays an increasingly important role in the global food supply.

In many respects, that’s good news, especially when wild fisheries are being harvested at or beyond a sustainable limit, and pollution and global warming, among other threats, are decimating wild fish stocks. When the aquaculture practices themselves start harming the wild fish, though, we must question whether or not the costs of the way we are farming outweigh the benefits.

Many aquaculture operations are environmentally sound, especially those that separate farmed fish from wild fish, such as the contained tanks and pond systems used to farm species such as tilapia and turbot. As well, many types of shellfish are farmed in ways that do not harm the environment.

Yes, you heard me right: some types of aquaculture are okay. And yes, I eat some farmed seafood.

But current salmon-farming practices are a different story. We’ve seen a lot of headlines lately about the damage done by salmon farms, here in Canada and in other parts of the world. The scientific evidence is strong and growing, for example, that sea lice from salmon farms in B.C. are causing severe damage to wild salmon stocks.

Sea lice are natural parasites that feed on salmon, and are especially harmful to juvenile salmon, which don’t yet have scales to protect them and which aren’t normally exposed to sea lice in large concentrations. Sea lice multiply on salmon farms and attach themselves to juvenile salmon as they pass the farms on their way out to sea. Using drugs to control the lice isn’t the answer, as the drugs come with their own environmental risks. And at best it is only a short-term solution as sea lice are already developing resistance to the main drugs used to control them.

Research has demonstrated similar situations in other salmon-farming regions like Scotland, Ireland, Norway, and Chile. Here in North America, a series of peer-reviewed scientific studies published in reputable journals such as Science and the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science has shown that sea lice can cause serious harm to wild salmon, including putting some stocks of pink and chum salmon at risk of extinction.

Wild salmon do not need additional threats to their survival. To put the issue in perspective, the West Coast of Vancouver Island once boasted 1,200 stocks. Now, some 718 – more than half – are extinct, at moderate risk of extinction, or considered stocks of special concern. At least 142 Pacific salmon populations have vanished forever.

Given the scientific evidence and the social, economic, and biological value of salmon, it is reasonable to expect change in the way things are done. Unfortunately, some people argue that the lack of 100 per cent proof means nothing should change. But scientific research rarely gives us such smoking guns. Nature is just too complex to even expect such a result. Science is a process of demonstrating the weight of evidence. Studies build on each other, eliminate alternative explanations, and test parallel ideas that help get to the most likely answer. In the process, other scientists have ways to challenge each other and test competing ideas. At a certain point, you have a solid reason to believe a given explanation is worthwhile. When something is as important as wild salmon, a strong weight of evidence justifies corrective action.

So what can we do? As a temporary solution, the salmon farms should be fallowed (removing the farmed fish for a period) while the juvenile fish pass by on their way out to sea. But the best solution would be to raise salmon in closed tanks that keep the farmed fish separate from the wild fish and their environments. Consumers should urge grocery stores and restaurants to sell only environmentally sound seafood products and should avoid buying products that are not.

Some people argue that it would cost too much to move to closed system aquaculture, or even to fallow farms during juvenile migration periods. But salmon can’t be seen just as a food source for people, and the costs of running any agricultural operation can’t be seen to just encompass the money required to build and run the farms. Wild salmon are a critical part of ocean, river, lake, and forest ecosystems. They provide food for everything from whales to eagles to bears, and even help fertilize the forests along the shores, rivers, and lakes where they live and spawn.

Yes, everything is interconnected. If the wild salmon dwindle and die, next come whales, bears, and our forests... And where will that leave us?

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

http://www.straight.com/article-141011/david-suzuki-fishing-salmon-answers
 
The Vancouver Sun, 21st April 2008

Governments share sea lice information, but not with public

Stephen Hume, Special to the Sun
Salmon farm sea lice infestations are now a global problem costing industry more than $100 million a year, says a funding application for an information-sharing project by government agencies from Canada, Ireland, Scotland and Norway.

A draft of the project summary, directed to the Norwegian government's science research granting agency in 2007, cites independent studies that in 2004 analysed overall industry spending for sea lice prophylaxis and for removal of the parasites from carcasses during processing.

Cumulative costs ranged as high as 45 cents per kilogram. The summary also acknowledges sea lice from farmed fish have been "implicated in the marked decline of wild salmon and sea trout in areas where salmon farms are located."

"In Scotland, farmed Atlantic salmon in their second year in the sea accounted for 98 per cent of the sea lice population," it says. "The dispersal of larvae has been of great concern in the debate concerning appropriate sites of salmon farms with regard to their distance from wild salmonid rivers."

Controversy still rages in British Columbia over the location of salmon farms on migration routes for wild salmon stocks that appear to be in crisis. Critics claim exposure of immature fish to sea lice infestations contributes to dramatic wild stock declines. Aquaculture advocates vehemently deny a connection. Both federal and provincial governments have been strong promoters of fish farms.

Canada's department of fisheries and oceans last week confirmed participation in what seems to be a strangely low-profile plan to coordinate field experiments and hold meetings where scientists share knowledge, methods and experimental results. The environmental organization Pure Salmon obtained the summary from Scotland's government using freedom of information laws and forwarded it and other documents to The Vancouver Sun last week.

The disclosure comes as controversy over salmon farming in South America intensifies. Safeway, one of the largest supermarket chains in the United States, is restricting purchases from Marine Harvest, its main supplier in Chile, because of an outbreak of infectious salmon anemia, which it says adversely affects quality and taste.

B.C.'s salmon farmers announced last week U.S. demand outstrips their supply capacity. The industry produces about 72,000 tonnes of farmed salmon annually from 126 licensed sites, of which about 80 operate at any one time. Industry wants to expand. but the provincial government recently placed a moratorium on new farms in pristine areas of the north coast.

Pure Salmon is an organization advocating aquaculture reform with branches in North America, Europe and South America. It often works with local organizations, such as the David Suzuki Foundation, the Raincoast Conservation Society and the Georgia Strait Alliance.

The environmental group obtained 95 pages of e-mails, letters, drafts of grant applications and reports relating to creation of the scientific information exchange, initially identified as CompareLice but renamed InterLice. Documents indicate that three scientists from Canada's department of fisheries and oceans, one from the University of B.C. and an American scientist from Washington state participated.

The Canadians included a specialist in fish pathogens, immunology and sea lice biology, a physical oceanographer and a numerical modeller. The American, according to one document, appears to be a private laboratory operator who was involved in monitoring salmon farms in Washington and B.C. Others came from Scotland's Fisheries Research Service, Norway's Institute of Marine Research and Ireland's Marine Institute. CompareLice meetings were held at Nanaimo, Campbell River and in the Broughton Archipelago, ground zero for B.C'.s controversy over whether sea lice from salmon farms concentrated there negatively affect immature wild fish.

Further meetings took place in Norway and Scotland, where similar major controversies have also occurred.

The documents obtained by Pure Salmon were censored by the Scottish government's information commissioner. Names of all participating scientists and government officials were blacked out. Several photographs, including one taken at a meeting at Painter's Lodge in Campbell River, were obscured so that individual faces and even clothing can't be recognized.

The cloak-and-dagger routine seems peculiar for a publicly funded information exchange on matters of public concern.

shume@islandnet.com


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=cb0b868b-7799-4ea7-ab35-612a9a535138
 
The Times Colonist, 21st April 2008

Salmon transfer worth trying

The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans should let biologist Alexandra Morton transport salmon fry so they don't have to pass by fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago as they migrate to the open sea.

Morton has moved fry in that vicinity before -- in 2005 she relocated 3,000 of them in order to study the survival prospects of fry infested with sea lice. At the time, she didn't even realize she needed a permit.

Now she does know, but the DFO won't grant her one to "medevac" pink fry from the mouth of the Ahta River to a spot about 30 kilometres away so they don't have to swim a sea-lice gauntlet.

While Morton's motive for moving the fry is to save them from what she expects would be death, DFO says her efforts might harm the fish.

DFO's reasoning is fishy, considering a local conservation group recently moved thousands of hatchery pink fry to Cowichan Bay without any trouble.

Perhaps wild salmon fry are more fragile than are their hatchery cousins. Morton doesn't think so, given her 2005 experience. The fry survived the move OK -- it was sea lice that killed them, she says.

Ted Perry, director of marine ecosystems at DFO's Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, says hatchery fry are more mature and tend to be moved from fresh water to predominantly fresh water in estuaries. He cites other subtle differences, but concedes that DFO doesn't have much information with how wild fry will endure relocation.

Well, here's a chance for the agency to find out. Unfortunately, DFO has an objection to every scenario Morton has proposed.

Bob Jones, editor of Island Fisherman magazine in Courtenay, says DFO won't allow the fry rescue "because it will be an embarrassment to them."

DFO's intransigence has caused advocates of wild salmon to rally behind Morton and contribute $30,000 to a defence fund. Morton wouldn't reveal whether she intends to defy DFO and go ahead with the relocation, risking potential fines.

The DFO isn't convinced that sea lice from salmon farms threaten wild salmon. That contradicts the findings of compelling peer-reviewed science, including a paper Morton co-authored in the prestigious journal Science.

Even if doubt remains about the impact of the sea lice on small salmon, the DFO should be erring on the side of caution to protect stocks. Morton's relocation plan seems a practical interim way to address the issue.

The consensus among those who depend upon wild salmon for their livelihoods is that net-pen salmon farms are causing an explosive growth in sea lice that are devastating juvenile salmon runs.

Compared with that, the potential harm of moving those fry appears small indeed.

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimes....html?id=cc9f1d78-9d52-44cd-8fe4-b960fc50b00b
 
Hello

I have been checking in on this debate and found it interesting. I can see that some don't understand that agenda has nothing to do with getting a paper published, in fact, it works against you. In my case my science is sent to the scientists who disagree me, often people in DFO and they have not been able to stop my work from being published yet, because the science is sound and agendas don't count.

What drove me to respond was a recent comment that the dire predictions about impact of fish farms on wild salmon have never come true. I find this very disturbing because we have seen the industry spread IHN coastwide, we have seen the lice epidemics, we have seen infected runs diminish far more than adjacent runs not exposed to fish farms. We have see Atlantic salmon progeny in BC rivers, and many other things. I can only imagine that what the author was referring to is that we have not seen complete extinction yet. And then what? Many of us will be right and the fish farmers will continue undisturbed. No other coast with abundant wild salmon are fish farming...

please see my letter today below.

Dear Minister Loyola Hearn and Premier Gordon Campbell:

I have another request.

Recently both of you denied me permission to move young wild salmon out of contact with industrial farm fish, even though the journal of SCIENCE reported your fish farms are killing off at least one population of wild salmon, which is illegal in Canada.

Both of you allow young wild salmon to be moved all the time through your Provincial-Federal Transplant Committee, so this was was a political decision..

Your dedication to the needs of Norwegian fish feedlot corporations is so risky to this country. Minister Hearn, in the midst of a viral fish farm epidemic sweeping Chile you actually went to Chile to sign deals to, “strengthen collaboration and information sharing among like-minded aquaculture producing countries”. Even Safeway responded to reduce purchase of Chilean farm fish. Marine Harvest has reportedly had to reduced its work force by 25% and is closing farms looking for pristine waters. Fish farms in Chile are sited much too close together, and the virus Infectious Salmon Anemia has shadowed fish farmers march across the globe. Are you really “like-minded,” with Chiles husbandry standards? Why would you do this to us?

In 1990, the Norwegian Parliamentary Committee on Environment came to Ottawa and is recorded in the Hansard (12-9-1990) warning Canada:” We are very strict about the quality and the environment. Therefore, some of the fish farmers went to Canada. They said we want bigger fish farms, we can do as we like.” And Canada and Chile welcomed an industry looking for lower standards, gave them access to our coasts and Canada disregarded a multitude of government processes warning not to put fish farms in wild salmon habitat. Why? How is this good for us?

DFO scientists are publishing papers on sea lice in the Broughton without even showing the fish farms on their maps, suggesting this issue is difficult to understand, even though BC has recently learned that industrially raised chickens must not be allowed contact with wild birds. Feedlots, all feedlots, break the natural laws that keep pathogens in check. It is insanity to put marine feedlots in amongst BC’s highly valuable wild salmon. Marine Harvest and Mainstream are not listening to the people of BC, they have other plans, more along the lines of what they are doing in Chile, to expand the exact fish farms reported driving wild salmon to extinction. When I asked Minister Bell if he would grant them this opportunity, Bell said “I won’t rule anything out.”

OK, so you both feel complete confidence in your decisions to allow fish farms in the most productive wild salmon habitat in Canada (from Port Hardy through to Georgia Strait). I will be providing you with an assessment of the bacterial communities and drug residues around these farms, the sea lice work is continuing to see how long the unapproved drug Slice can suppress farm lice. We will be looking into the liver lesions reported by Dr Saksida in wild juvenile fish around fish farms. We will give you a full report on the grossly disfigured and diseased flatfish around fish farms. We can help you understand the role of fish farms in the spread of toxic algal blooms in Canada’s pristine waters and I think you owe it to the public to give me access to the fish farms to observe the fate of young wild salmon that belong to the public as they pass though these fish farms. Pit-lamping was outlawed in Canada, but the fish farmers are allowed to attract every bite-sized marine creature into their pens with brilliant night lights. In my daily visits to the Glacier Falls fish farm I see the last of the Ahta River fry to the east of the farm, but none to the west. In my research on escaped farm fish I found juvenile salmon in their stomachs.

Give me permission to stand on the Glacier Falls fish farm daily for one week during the wild fry migration. Simply stand on it with a camera and watch.. Surely this will not disrupt the farmers, nor endanger wild salmon fry. If you have such confidence in fish farms this request should cause you no difficulties.

Thank you,



Alexandra Morton R.P.Bio.
 
Back
Top