fish farm siting criteria & politics
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
Editing? You mean sort of like the pictures of flawless-looking Atlantic salmon and big smiles on aquaculture workers from the BC Salmon Growers Assn website and on their advertisements in the local papers?
http://proxychi.baremetal.com/salmonfarmers.org/video/advertising_gallery/BCSFA 07 sun go green.pdf
“Caring for the environment, raising healthy
salmon and contributing to our communities
are priorities for BC salmon farmers.”
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Agent, you said;
Dill et al's comments in the link you posted state Beamish's "conclusion" ... "is unwarranted and, indeed, not a conclusion at all." Nonetheless, Mary Ellen Walling and the BCSFA resurrect Beamish's unwarranted non-conclusion in their letter to NBC.
Thanks for the links, they are both enlightenig reads.
Dill et al's comments in the link you posted state Beamish's "conclusion" ... "is unwarranted and, indeed, not a conclusion at all." Nonetheless, Mary Ellen Walling and the BCSFA resurrect Beamish's unwarranted non-conclusion in their letter to NBC.
Thanks for the links, they are both enlightenig reads.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Sockeyefry,
You don't agree with the analysis of the CR Mirror article and the accompanying Walcan video. On the other hand, the article and Walcan video provide no real proof to dispute Morton's claims. It would be fairly simple for Walcan shoot some underwater video of the end their outfall pipe to prove their detractors are wrong.
Oh, right, salmon farmers don't have to prove anything. They are only required (in their own minds) to poke holes in other people's proof.
You don't agree with the analysis of the CR Mirror article and the accompanying Walcan video. On the other hand, the article and Walcan video provide no real proof to dispute Morton's claims. It would be fairly simple for Walcan shoot some underwater video of the end their outfall pipe to prove their detractors are wrong.
Oh, right, salmon farmers don't have to prove anything. They are only required (in their own minds) to poke holes in other people's proof.
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Cuttle,
I don't think that it is what Morton is doing that I have the issue with. Everyone should ask questions when they percieve something is not right. However, when a person flagrantly misinforms the public for her own personal gain, that is where I draw the line.
I don't think that it is what Morton is doing that I have the issue with. Everyone should ask questions when they percieve something is not right. However, when a person flagrantly misinforms the public for her own personal gain, that is where I draw the line.
R
rico
Guest
You mean kind of like Mary Ellen? Do you draw the line there<
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Mary Ellen is NOT making money based on how many people she can dupe with sensationalist claims to donate money to her cause. Morton is. That is the difference, and I am sorry you cannot see that. This is Morton's occupation. The more peopel she can fool the nmore money she makes.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
I think some there "might" be making some money, I did "not" realize she worked there for free?? Her salary is how much out of that $446,174.00?? [?][?]
"The BC Salmon Farmers Association is supported by contributions from their membership. For the year ended March 31, 2008, total financial expenditures were $670,015.00 These contributions include $446,174.00 spent on administrative expenses which include staff salaries, board expenses, telephone, travel and office expense.
In 2007/2008, $107,890 was spent on direct to consumer events like Eat Vancouver and the Boston Seafood Show, fish donations for community fundraisers, tours and website maintenance. Expenditures on fish health monitoring, research and development coordination and sea lice reports totalled $115,951. For more information about membership please contact the BCSFA office." [:0][:0]
I am sorry... how much was "Morton's" pay?
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
LOCHABER NEWS
Probe launched after salmon farm escape
By Stuart Taylor
Published: 11 March, 2010
A PROBE is under way after up to 100,000 salmon smolts escaped from a Lochaber freshwater farm during a storm.
advertising
Wild fisheries interests have condemned the escape and have called for fish farms to be moved away from wild salmon rivers or to be put in self-contained land-based units.
The juvenile Atlantic smolts, each weighing 70 grams, escaped through a hole in a net at a Marine Harvest fish farm in Loch Lochy, near Spean Bridge, at the end of February.
The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards (ASFB) and the Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland (RAFTS) say the escape comes on the back of a year that had seen the highest number of escapes in the past five years.
Andrew Wallace, managing director of ASFB and RAFTS, said: "This latest escape suggests that the industry's appalling record on containment is continuing.
"It has occurred at a new so-called 'state of the art' farm which, despite industry fanfare, has proved incapable of withstanding the impact of moderate winds - the kind that are hardly uncommon in the west Highlands.
"It makes a mockery of Marine Harvest's mission statement to 'minimise the environmental impact of its activities and operate in harmony with the environment'."
Mr Wallace added: "We keep on hearing about the high standards the industry purports to work to but elementary problems such as containment remain unresolved.
"We remain highly sceptical that the regulatory framework for salmon farming and the industry's much-trumpeted Code of Good Practice are anywhere near adequate to properly manage an industry that only gets away with this sort of incompetence because the problems are out of sight and out of mind."
Mr Wallace said relocation of freshwater salmon smolts "must now become a reality".
"They should either be located in lochs which are not part of wild salmon rivers or, ideally, in self-contained land-based units, as is practised in other countries.
"It is inexcusable that they are placed within important wild salmon river systems such as the Lochy."
Jon Gibb, clerk to the Lochaber District Salmon Fishery Board, said escaped farmed salmon pose a major risk to the genetic integrity and survival of wild salmon populations.
He added: "Just a few miles away there are huge non-migratory fish waterbodies such as Loch Laggan that could easily accommodate many of these smolt farms.
"Yet they continue to proliferate in pristine salmon and sea trout lochs where they are proven to have a detrimental impact.
"My worry is that indigenous stocks such as the famous Lochy salmon run could be driven into extinction before someone has the sense to put a stop to this madness.
"With yet another disastrous escape like this we are rapidly getting closer to that day."
This week, Gideon Pringle, freshwater production manger for Marine Harvest, told the Lochaber News: "We take any fish escape extremely seriously and consequently very much regret the loss of these fish at our farm in Loch Lochy.
"The escape happened during the bad weather and very unfortunately a tear in a net wasn't picked up initially. This was down to carrying out the inspection in bad weather, making it difficult to fully inspect the nets.
"An investigation will be carried out and we will work closely with Marine Scotland fish health inspectors on this serious matter. We will also co-operate fully with wild fisheries interests to re-capture any fish that we can.
"As soon as possible we will count the fish in the pen to establish the actual loss."
s.taylor@lochaber-news.co.uk
How much do you want to bet that the investigation finds no negligence?
Probe launched after salmon farm escape
By Stuart Taylor
Published: 11 March, 2010
A PROBE is under way after up to 100,000 salmon smolts escaped from a Lochaber freshwater farm during a storm.
advertising
Wild fisheries interests have condemned the escape and have called for fish farms to be moved away from wild salmon rivers or to be put in self-contained land-based units.
The juvenile Atlantic smolts, each weighing 70 grams, escaped through a hole in a net at a Marine Harvest fish farm in Loch Lochy, near Spean Bridge, at the end of February.
The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards (ASFB) and the Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland (RAFTS) say the escape comes on the back of a year that had seen the highest number of escapes in the past five years.
Andrew Wallace, managing director of ASFB and RAFTS, said: "This latest escape suggests that the industry's appalling record on containment is continuing.
"It has occurred at a new so-called 'state of the art' farm which, despite industry fanfare, has proved incapable of withstanding the impact of moderate winds - the kind that are hardly uncommon in the west Highlands.
"It makes a mockery of Marine Harvest's mission statement to 'minimise the environmental impact of its activities and operate in harmony with the environment'."
Mr Wallace added: "We keep on hearing about the high standards the industry purports to work to but elementary problems such as containment remain unresolved.
"We remain highly sceptical that the regulatory framework for salmon farming and the industry's much-trumpeted Code of Good Practice are anywhere near adequate to properly manage an industry that only gets away with this sort of incompetence because the problems are out of sight and out of mind."
Mr Wallace said relocation of freshwater salmon smolts "must now become a reality".
"They should either be located in lochs which are not part of wild salmon rivers or, ideally, in self-contained land-based units, as is practised in other countries.
"It is inexcusable that they are placed within important wild salmon river systems such as the Lochy."
Jon Gibb, clerk to the Lochaber District Salmon Fishery Board, said escaped farmed salmon pose a major risk to the genetic integrity and survival of wild salmon populations.
He added: "Just a few miles away there are huge non-migratory fish waterbodies such as Loch Laggan that could easily accommodate many of these smolt farms.
"Yet they continue to proliferate in pristine salmon and sea trout lochs where they are proven to have a detrimental impact.
"My worry is that indigenous stocks such as the famous Lochy salmon run could be driven into extinction before someone has the sense to put a stop to this madness.
"With yet another disastrous escape like this we are rapidly getting closer to that day."
This week, Gideon Pringle, freshwater production manger for Marine Harvest, told the Lochaber News: "We take any fish escape extremely seriously and consequently very much regret the loss of these fish at our farm in Loch Lochy.
"The escape happened during the bad weather and very unfortunately a tear in a net wasn't picked up initially. This was down to carrying out the inspection in bad weather, making it difficult to fully inspect the nets.
"An investigation will be carried out and we will work closely with Marine Scotland fish health inspectors on this serious matter. We will also co-operate fully with wild fisheries interests to re-capture any fish that we can.
"As soon as possible we will count the fish in the pen to establish the actual loss."
s.taylor@lochaber-news.co.uk
How much do you want to bet that the investigation finds no negligence?
I would argue that Mary Ellen is making money by trying to dupe people, us the public of Canada by claiming fish farms are enviromentaly friendly and safe for wild salmon. The only difference is she is not sensationalizing it and trying to do it quietly with out anyone noticing it.
JOIN ALEXANDRA MORTON for a must-see presentation on the science and politics of fish farming on Sunday, 14 March 2010 at 2:00 in the Florence Filberg Centre, 411 Anderton Rd., Courtenay, BC. Admission by donation. For information call (250) 890-0499 or email consulco@telus.net Proceeds will help support Alex's ground-breaking research and legal work to protect our wild salmon.
The Courier-Islander, 12th March 2010
Industry, pesticide producer pay for lice study
Dan Maclennan
The aquaculture industry and its provincial regulators say there's no evidence sea lice are becoming resistant to Slice, the pesticide used to control them, but the industry and the makers of Slice are behind a Campbell River study that will look for more evidence.
"It's pretty exciting," said Sonja Saksida, executive director of the Campbell River-based BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences (BCCAHS). "To actually be here before you're seeing the problem instead of always reacting to problems. I think we are getting to be internationally known by researchers on sea lice as being a place to do work on sea lice."
Sea lice have grown resistant to Slice in other fish farming areas including Europe, Chile and the east coast of Canada. That's forced a move to the use of other toxic chemical treatments. Last month, biologist Alexandra Morton warned sea lice at Greig Seafood farms in Nootka Sound appeared to have grown resistant to Slice treatments. She said the proof was that sea lice had reappeared too soon after farmed fish were fed Slice. The industry, the provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and Saksida responded that there was no evidence of Slice resistance. Saksida elaborated last week.
"Traditionally, you start worrying about resistance when you start seeing the treatments not working," she told the Courier-Islander. "You treat the fish and you expect to see a certain pattern of the loss of lice. If you start not seeing it, then you start worrying about an efficacy problem. That's what we have done. We've looked at treatment data from 2003 to 2008 and I've actually looked at 2009 in the last bit and there is no evidence. Nobody's seeing there's any kind of difference in pattern and how the treatments work.
"That's quite different than what had been reported in other areas like Europe and the East Coast and Chile. They start noticing that either the lice weren't getting removed at the same level or the same speed, or the infection is occurring quickly. We're not seeing any of that."</u>
The next step moves from data analysis to laboratory work at BCCAHS. Sea lice will be collected and exposed to Slice at different concentrations.
"There should be a specific dosage that has been calculated that should kill the lice," Saksida said. "If you see a change over time, that's an indication. If it takes more to kill it, or you've used the highest concentration and they're still not dead, then obviously you've got resistance issues."
The goal is to establish a base line database over months and months. BCCAHS is collaborating with the Atlantic Vet College to get the proper training and protocol for the testing. Slice supplier Intervet/Schering-Plough is helping with the training and equipment including sea lice incubators and aerators.
The cost of doing the work will be considerable. Saksida is hoping to do periodic chemical analysis, or 'bio-assays' on the lice about 20 times per year. She estimates each would cost roughly $3,000, plus a similar amount to collect the lice samples. That would come to roughly $120,000 per year.
"The salmon farming industry have been really supportive of this being set up, so they would pay," Saksida said. "Both the provincial and federal government have also sort of asked how they could help. Perhaps they'll provide some funding, but that hasn't really been discussed."
Saksida's not concerned that the study results could be seen as tainted because of the industry funding.
"Who else is going to fund it?" she asked.
"If industry is interested in knowing, if the pharmaceutical company is interested in knowing that their product is still working, that's to their credit. If the ENGOs (environmental non-government organizations) are interested in what's going on and want to collect the lice, we're totally open to receiving lice from anybody and we can give them the protocol on how to collect them so that we can ensure the best results.
"Somebody has to pay. We are a non-profit. I'd love to be able to do all this stuff for free, but that's not going to happen."
Morton has a somewhat different view.
"It's a good thing that the industry is going to pay for Dr. Sonja Saksida to look into this because they probably are realizing they are in deep trouble," she said.
"They had to get new lice drugs on the east coast of Canada; they had to get new lice drugs in Norway and they're going to have to get new lice drugs here.
"We're sending a team out (to Nookta Sound.)
"We're going to do our own drug-resistance study, and we'll see how the results compare."
http://www.canada.com/business/Industry+pesticide+producer+lice+study/2673503/story.html
Industry, pesticide producer pay for lice study
Dan Maclennan
The aquaculture industry and its provincial regulators say there's no evidence sea lice are becoming resistant to Slice, the pesticide used to control them, but the industry and the makers of Slice are behind a Campbell River study that will look for more evidence.
"It's pretty exciting," said Sonja Saksida, executive director of the Campbell River-based BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences (BCCAHS). "To actually be here before you're seeing the problem instead of always reacting to problems. I think we are getting to be internationally known by researchers on sea lice as being a place to do work on sea lice."
Sea lice have grown resistant to Slice in other fish farming areas including Europe, Chile and the east coast of Canada. That's forced a move to the use of other toxic chemical treatments. Last month, biologist Alexandra Morton warned sea lice at Greig Seafood farms in Nootka Sound appeared to have grown resistant to Slice treatments. She said the proof was that sea lice had reappeared too soon after farmed fish were fed Slice. The industry, the provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and Saksida responded that there was no evidence of Slice resistance. Saksida elaborated last week.
"Traditionally, you start worrying about resistance when you start seeing the treatments not working," she told the Courier-Islander. "You treat the fish and you expect to see a certain pattern of the loss of lice. If you start not seeing it, then you start worrying about an efficacy problem. That's what we have done. We've looked at treatment data from 2003 to 2008 and I've actually looked at 2009 in the last bit and there is no evidence. Nobody's seeing there's any kind of difference in pattern and how the treatments work.
"That's quite different than what had been reported in other areas like Europe and the East Coast and Chile. They start noticing that either the lice weren't getting removed at the same level or the same speed, or the infection is occurring quickly. We're not seeing any of that."</u>
The next step moves from data analysis to laboratory work at BCCAHS. Sea lice will be collected and exposed to Slice at different concentrations.
"There should be a specific dosage that has been calculated that should kill the lice," Saksida said. "If you see a change over time, that's an indication. If it takes more to kill it, or you've used the highest concentration and they're still not dead, then obviously you've got resistance issues."
The goal is to establish a base line database over months and months. BCCAHS is collaborating with the Atlantic Vet College to get the proper training and protocol for the testing. Slice supplier Intervet/Schering-Plough is helping with the training and equipment including sea lice incubators and aerators.
The cost of doing the work will be considerable. Saksida is hoping to do periodic chemical analysis, or 'bio-assays' on the lice about 20 times per year. She estimates each would cost roughly $3,000, plus a similar amount to collect the lice samples. That would come to roughly $120,000 per year.
"The salmon farming industry have been really supportive of this being set up, so they would pay," Saksida said. "Both the provincial and federal government have also sort of asked how they could help. Perhaps they'll provide some funding, but that hasn't really been discussed."
Saksida's not concerned that the study results could be seen as tainted because of the industry funding.
"Who else is going to fund it?" she asked.
"If industry is interested in knowing, if the pharmaceutical company is interested in knowing that their product is still working, that's to their credit. If the ENGOs (environmental non-government organizations) are interested in what's going on and want to collect the lice, we're totally open to receiving lice from anybody and we can give them the protocol on how to collect them so that we can ensure the best results.
"Somebody has to pay. We are a non-profit. I'd love to be able to do all this stuff for free, but that's not going to happen."
Morton has a somewhat different view.
"It's a good thing that the industry is going to pay for Dr. Sonja Saksida to look into this because they probably are realizing they are in deep trouble," she said.
"They had to get new lice drugs on the east coast of Canada; they had to get new lice drugs in Norway and they're going to have to get new lice drugs here.
"We're sending a team out (to Nookta Sound.)
"We're going to do our own drug-resistance study, and we'll see how the results compare."
http://www.canada.com/business/Industry+pesticide+producer+lice+study/2673503/story.html
"We're not seeing any of that."
graph reveals extremely high sea lice levels on the Norwegian Grieg farm Morton et al. visited in the video, followed by a brief decline after drug treatment (to levels still above the provincial limit) and then rapid rise again immediately. This graph strongly suggests drug-resistance. Data from provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) sea lice data.
graph reveals extremely high sea lice levels on the Norwegian Grieg farm Morton et al. visited in the video, followed by a brief decline after drug treatment (to levels still above the provincial limit) and then rapid rise again immediately. This graph strongly suggests drug-resistance. Data from provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) sea lice data.
Problems in Norway can happen here
Courier-Islander
Published: Friday, February 26, 2010
I would think Dr. Sonya Saksida of the B.C. Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences (CAHS) knows wild salmon do have a treatment for lice. It is the natural cycle back to fresh water where the lice die. Slice is not a medicine, it is a toxic chemical. At the Public Hearing, Dr. Sonya Saksida supported the application for two huge Grieg Seafoods open net fish farms on the main Fraser River Sockeye salmon migration route in Sunderland Channel. Given the nine million Fraser River Sockeye loss, that is risky.
Graphs on the MAL website show very high numbers of sea lice in the fall of 2009, even though Slice treatment was used, for the zone that includes Esperanza and Nootka Sound. This is consistent with Alexandra Morton's findings. Norwegian Companies experiencing a resistance to Slice on farm fish now in Norway are the same companies operating in B.C. It can happen here!
When the Pacific salmon return to fresh water their sea lice die, but the farms' large numbers of fish are packed together in ocean water and the numbers of lice explode. The sea lice in the Atlantic open net fish farms are then transferred to the clean tiny smolts as they pass the farms on their outmigration.
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
Font:****Even though, as in a recent reply to me, a worst case scenario can be painted to show why closed containment will not work, the provincial Ministry of Environment and companies are planning to do just that.
One need not buy farmed salmon to save our wild salmon. We can choose hatchery salmon or Alaska salmon, a safer environmental choice. Supporters of open net fish farms would have you believe that Alaska's methods also threaten the wild salmon, but Alaska's wild salmon are up 20 million. It is hard to argue with success.
Even though our salmon have to fight for feed, and Alaska catches our salmon, quoting from the Vancouver Sun, "Sockeye runs near the Fraser River that did not pass salmon farms including; Columbia River to the south, and Somass River to the west survived better than forecast.
Only the sockeye stocks that migrated past 60 salmon farm sites failed at over 90 per cent."
With the government regulation of a low sea lice count in the farms for their 2007 spring outmigration, the 2009 Pinks returned in record numbers.
What will happen to our Pacific smolt outmigrations when sea lice in open net fish farms become resistant to Slice? I fear we are about to find out.
Leona Adams
http://www2.canada.com/courierislan....html?id=8bcb998c-0015-4a03-a872-3a20201d9e71
Courier-Islander
Published: Friday, February 26, 2010
I would think Dr. Sonya Saksida of the B.C. Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences (CAHS) knows wild salmon do have a treatment for lice. It is the natural cycle back to fresh water where the lice die. Slice is not a medicine, it is a toxic chemical. At the Public Hearing, Dr. Sonya Saksida supported the application for two huge Grieg Seafoods open net fish farms on the main Fraser River Sockeye salmon migration route in Sunderland Channel. Given the nine million Fraser River Sockeye loss, that is risky.
Graphs on the MAL website show very high numbers of sea lice in the fall of 2009, even though Slice treatment was used, for the zone that includes Esperanza and Nootka Sound. This is consistent with Alexandra Morton's findings. Norwegian Companies experiencing a resistance to Slice on farm fish now in Norway are the same companies operating in B.C. It can happen here!
When the Pacific salmon return to fresh water their sea lice die, but the farms' large numbers of fish are packed together in ocean water and the numbers of lice explode. The sea lice in the Atlantic open net fish farms are then transferred to the clean tiny smolts as they pass the farms on their outmigration.
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
Font:****Even though, as in a recent reply to me, a worst case scenario can be painted to show why closed containment will not work, the provincial Ministry of Environment and companies are planning to do just that.
One need not buy farmed salmon to save our wild salmon. We can choose hatchery salmon or Alaska salmon, a safer environmental choice. Supporters of open net fish farms would have you believe that Alaska's methods also threaten the wild salmon, but Alaska's wild salmon are up 20 million. It is hard to argue with success.
Even though our salmon have to fight for feed, and Alaska catches our salmon, quoting from the Vancouver Sun, "Sockeye runs near the Fraser River that did not pass salmon farms including; Columbia River to the south, and Somass River to the west survived better than forecast.
Only the sockeye stocks that migrated past 60 salmon farm sites failed at over 90 per cent."
With the government regulation of a low sea lice count in the farms for their 2007 spring outmigration, the 2009 Pinks returned in record numbers.
What will happen to our Pacific smolt outmigrations when sea lice in open net fish farms become resistant to Slice? I fear we are about to find out.
Leona Adams
http://www2.canada.com/courierislan....html?id=8bcb998c-0015-4a03-a872-3a20201d9e71
Keep in mind Odd Gryleland used to own his fish farm, sold it, and got hired by a large fish farm company, and does PR for them. He was also on the science council for years - where he filtered who got money to study what. This is his take on it below:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Farming Xpert, 11th March 2010Sea
lice are not killing wild salmon in B.C.
Canada: Government scientists are publishing years of field and laboratory studies, with no demonstrated links found between lice from farms and wild fish mortality.
Odd Grydeland
Critics of salmon farming are quick to point to the disastrous development of the Pacific cod fishery on the East Coast of Canada years ago as an example of mismanagement of fish stocks by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). But the fact remains that it was the politicians of the day that kept bowing under pressure from fishermen to keep catching cod, despite warnings from DFO scientists that the situation was heading for disaster. Now the same scientific body is coming out with the truth about salmon farming and sea lice in British Columbia, and it is now the critics of the industry that are trying to convince the population that the situation is quite different.
In a section on its web site, DFO provides some Facts About Sea Lice that should be mandatory reading for journalists, politicians and the public individuals and organizations interested in the subject.
In the form of a Question and Answer session, DFO addresses a number of related issues- here are a couple of the most interesting Facts;
Is it true that DFO research supports claims that sea lice from salmon farms is broadly infecting and harming wild Pink salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago?
No, this is not true. In fact, DFO scientists at the Pacific Biological Station have conducted laboratory research on the impact of sea lice on juvenile pink salmon from the Quinsam and Glendale rivers. Juvenile pink salmon were studied in three size categories (0.3 gm, 0.7 gm and 2.4 gm) and exposed to high, medium and low intensities of sea lice to study rates of infection and its effect.
This 2008 study by DFO scientists indicated that, in a controlled laboratory setting, deliberate exposure to high concentrations of sea lice can contribute to some mortality of very small juvenile wild pink salmon, that is, lighter than 0.3 grams. No mortality was observed in larger fish exposed to sea lice in this study (0.7 or 2.4 grams). Pink salmon in the wild are approximately 0.3 gm when they initially enter the marine environment, as demonstrated by sampling in the BA since 2003. The larger size categories of juvenile pink salmon are consistent with past research conducted in this DFO laboratory. This laboratory study is the first time that a DFO has found a direct link between sea lice infection and juvenile salmon mortality. Laboratory observations that sea lice can lead to some mortality on small pink salmon are consistent with many statements from NGOs and other researchers. It is important to note that many other sources of mortality could be involved in the natural environment, predation by other species, ocean climate, and habitat loss. It is also possible that other wild fish species may be a source of sea lice infecting juvenile pink salmon. DFO is currently examining its extensive information on the distribution of juvenile pink and chum salmon from field studies to determine where they are and their proximity to salmon farms in the BA.
Is it true that sea lice are killing juvenile Sockeye salmon?
No. Sea lice from salmon farms cannot singularly explain the extremely poor marine survival of Fraser River sockeye. Sockeye returns to the Skeena River in northern British Columbia were also significantly lower than anticipated this year and the migration route of juvenile sockeye from this river system does not take them anywhere near fish farms.We also know that the majority of sea lice found on juvenile sockeye in the Strait of Georgia where the Fraser River salmon migrate are not the same sea lice species reported on BC salmon farms. (The most commonly found species of lice on farmed Atlantic salmon is Lepeophtheirus salmonis, while sockeye juveniles were found to harbour Caligus species- Ed. Comment) Juvenile sockeye that migrate past salmon farms in the Discovery Islands are significantly larger than pink salmon – 5 to 10 grams in size - when they migrate into the ocean, well beyond the threshold for susceptibility to sea lice.Since 2003, DFO has conducted sea lice studies, contributing to a growing body of scientific knowledge. Canada is recognized internationally as a world-leader on sea lice research, with a research and management approach informed by previous and current levels of international scientific knowledge and on-the-farm practices.
http://www.fishfarmingxpert.com/index.php?page_id=76&article_id=87433
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Farming Xpert, 11th March 2010Sea
lice are not killing wild salmon in B.C.
Canada: Government scientists are publishing years of field and laboratory studies, with no demonstrated links found between lice from farms and wild fish mortality.
Odd Grydeland
Critics of salmon farming are quick to point to the disastrous development of the Pacific cod fishery on the East Coast of Canada years ago as an example of mismanagement of fish stocks by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). But the fact remains that it was the politicians of the day that kept bowing under pressure from fishermen to keep catching cod, despite warnings from DFO scientists that the situation was heading for disaster. Now the same scientific body is coming out with the truth about salmon farming and sea lice in British Columbia, and it is now the critics of the industry that are trying to convince the population that the situation is quite different.
In a section on its web site, DFO provides some Facts About Sea Lice that should be mandatory reading for journalists, politicians and the public individuals and organizations interested in the subject.
In the form of a Question and Answer session, DFO addresses a number of related issues- here are a couple of the most interesting Facts;
Is it true that DFO research supports claims that sea lice from salmon farms is broadly infecting and harming wild Pink salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago?
No, this is not true. In fact, DFO scientists at the Pacific Biological Station have conducted laboratory research on the impact of sea lice on juvenile pink salmon from the Quinsam and Glendale rivers. Juvenile pink salmon were studied in three size categories (0.3 gm, 0.7 gm and 2.4 gm) and exposed to high, medium and low intensities of sea lice to study rates of infection and its effect.
This 2008 study by DFO scientists indicated that, in a controlled laboratory setting, deliberate exposure to high concentrations of sea lice can contribute to some mortality of very small juvenile wild pink salmon, that is, lighter than 0.3 grams. No mortality was observed in larger fish exposed to sea lice in this study (0.7 or 2.4 grams). Pink salmon in the wild are approximately 0.3 gm when they initially enter the marine environment, as demonstrated by sampling in the BA since 2003. The larger size categories of juvenile pink salmon are consistent with past research conducted in this DFO laboratory. This laboratory study is the first time that a DFO has found a direct link between sea lice infection and juvenile salmon mortality. Laboratory observations that sea lice can lead to some mortality on small pink salmon are consistent with many statements from NGOs and other researchers. It is important to note that many other sources of mortality could be involved in the natural environment, predation by other species, ocean climate, and habitat loss. It is also possible that other wild fish species may be a source of sea lice infecting juvenile pink salmon. DFO is currently examining its extensive information on the distribution of juvenile pink and chum salmon from field studies to determine where they are and their proximity to salmon farms in the BA.
Is it true that sea lice are killing juvenile Sockeye salmon?
No. Sea lice from salmon farms cannot singularly explain the extremely poor marine survival of Fraser River sockeye. Sockeye returns to the Skeena River in northern British Columbia were also significantly lower than anticipated this year and the migration route of juvenile sockeye from this river system does not take them anywhere near fish farms.We also know that the majority of sea lice found on juvenile sockeye in the Strait of Georgia where the Fraser River salmon migrate are not the same sea lice species reported on BC salmon farms. (The most commonly found species of lice on farmed Atlantic salmon is Lepeophtheirus salmonis, while sockeye juveniles were found to harbour Caligus species- Ed. Comment) Juvenile sockeye that migrate past salmon farms in the Discovery Islands are significantly larger than pink salmon – 5 to 10 grams in size - when they migrate into the ocean, well beyond the threshold for susceptibility to sea lice.Since 2003, DFO has conducted sea lice studies, contributing to a growing body of scientific knowledge. Canada is recognized internationally as a world-leader on sea lice research, with a research and management approach informed by previous and current levels of international scientific knowledge and on-the-farm practices.
http://www.fishfarmingxpert.com/index.php?page_id=76&article_id=87433
Alexandra Morton to Start a Protest Walk
Alexandra Morton is fed up with the stalling of governments on the wild salmon situation. And I should say here, so am I. She will begin a protest march on April 22,2010 from Sointula after traveling by boat from the Broughton Archipelago. The march will culminate in Victoria May 9 (Mothers Day). She has suggested others join her and maybe even start their own Marches from other parts of the province. It's a huge undertaking on her part to Save the Salmon.
Read about it here
http://howbadtherecord.blogspot.com/2010/03/alexandra-morton-to-start-protest-walk.html
Alexandra Morton blog, 14th March 2010
The Migration
Salmon Are Sacred GET OUT MIGRATION
I have decided it is time to take the issue of industrial salmon farming to the people in an unprecedented way. I have written letters, done the science, met with government and industry around the world, engaged in government processes, talked to thousands of people, been the subject of international media and films and today I stand facing a vertical wall of impenetrable denial. Nothing has brought reason to this situation. We will lose our wild salmon if government continues to carelessly put farm salmon before wild salmon every time.
Because there has been no significant progress in spite of this enormous effort and time spent by many, I no longer feel there is hope of reforming this industry. Government is allowing Norwegian salmon farmers to continue denying even the most basic issues, like sea lice and ISA virus introduction. If we let this play out our wild fish simply will not survive
So it is time for the Get Out Migration. I am not talking about all aquaculture. I am referring specifically to the massive scale Norwegian feedlots. There are Canadian fish farmers who know how to use tanks on land who are not impacting our wild salmon and herring. This is about saving wild salmon and all of us who depend on them.
I will begin deep in the beautiful Ahta River in late April with the salmon and move by boat through the Broughton Archipelago to Sointula. On Earth day I will simply start walking to Victoria and ask people join me to stand up along the way and be counted. I will communicate our progress and connect the countries facing this industry through the website www.salmonaresacred.org We hold salmon as sacred because they so generously feed our world. They built the soil of this province with their flesh, they grow our children, they feed the trees that make the oxygen we breath, they are food security in a world losing ability to even pollinate flowers.
When we get to Victoria, we will meet with representatives from government.
We cannot match the corporate PR machine, nor their lobbying power. So I am simply inviting people to make themselves visible by joining us on foot, electronically and by mail. This will be peaceful, colourful, musical, fun, family oriented. Unless we stand up and become visible, government will continue to degrade the laws of Canada to the benefit of the salmon farming industry, as suggested in the most recent throne speech. The salmon farming industry must be free to grow relentlessly to meet their responsibility to their European shareholders. We will carry a message to the Federal government – do not degrade the Fisheries Act again so that it no longer protects the fish that belong to the people of Canada.
Please stand up for wild salmon by joining a migration emerging from the Broughton Archipelago on then leaving Sointula on 22nd April and closing with a blessing in Victoria on Mothers’ Day (9th May). If you are interested in hosting other events, leading a migration arm from the Fraser River Valley, Gold River or other places in B.C. or just joining us for one step of the way please let us know. www.salmonaresacred.org
http://www.alexandramorton.typepad.com/
Alexandra Morton is fed up with the stalling of governments on the wild salmon situation. And I should say here, so am I. She will begin a protest march on April 22,2010 from Sointula after traveling by boat from the Broughton Archipelago. The march will culminate in Victoria May 9 (Mothers Day). She has suggested others join her and maybe even start their own Marches from other parts of the province. It's a huge undertaking on her part to Save the Salmon.
Read about it here
http://howbadtherecord.blogspot.com/2010/03/alexandra-morton-to-start-protest-walk.html
Alexandra Morton blog, 14th March 2010
The Migration
Salmon Are Sacred GET OUT MIGRATION
I have decided it is time to take the issue of industrial salmon farming to the people in an unprecedented way. I have written letters, done the science, met with government and industry around the world, engaged in government processes, talked to thousands of people, been the subject of international media and films and today I stand facing a vertical wall of impenetrable denial. Nothing has brought reason to this situation. We will lose our wild salmon if government continues to carelessly put farm salmon before wild salmon every time.
Because there has been no significant progress in spite of this enormous effort and time spent by many, I no longer feel there is hope of reforming this industry. Government is allowing Norwegian salmon farmers to continue denying even the most basic issues, like sea lice and ISA virus introduction. If we let this play out our wild fish simply will not survive
So it is time for the Get Out Migration. I am not talking about all aquaculture. I am referring specifically to the massive scale Norwegian feedlots. There are Canadian fish farmers who know how to use tanks on land who are not impacting our wild salmon and herring. This is about saving wild salmon and all of us who depend on them.
I will begin deep in the beautiful Ahta River in late April with the salmon and move by boat through the Broughton Archipelago to Sointula. On Earth day I will simply start walking to Victoria and ask people join me to stand up along the way and be counted. I will communicate our progress and connect the countries facing this industry through the website www.salmonaresacred.org We hold salmon as sacred because they so generously feed our world. They built the soil of this province with their flesh, they grow our children, they feed the trees that make the oxygen we breath, they are food security in a world losing ability to even pollinate flowers.
When we get to Victoria, we will meet with representatives from government.
We cannot match the corporate PR machine, nor their lobbying power. So I am simply inviting people to make themselves visible by joining us on foot, electronically and by mail. This will be peaceful, colourful, musical, fun, family oriented. Unless we stand up and become visible, government will continue to degrade the laws of Canada to the benefit of the salmon farming industry, as suggested in the most recent throne speech. The salmon farming industry must be free to grow relentlessly to meet their responsibility to their European shareholders. We will carry a message to the Federal government – do not degrade the Fisheries Act again so that it no longer protects the fish that belong to the people of Canada.
Please stand up for wild salmon by joining a migration emerging from the Broughton Archipelago on then leaving Sointula on 22nd April and closing with a blessing in Victoria on Mothers’ Day (9th May). If you are interested in hosting other events, leading a migration arm from the Fraser River Valley, Gold River or other places in B.C. or just joining us for one step of the way please let us know. www.salmonaresacred.org
http://www.alexandramorton.typepad.com/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Public gains long-awaited access to sea lice records
Submitted by Kori Brus — Mar 01, 2010 02:28 PM
Environmental groups end fish farm secrecy with Freedom of Information win
Mar 01, 2010
VANCOUVER – The public will finally get to see to the scale of sea lice and disease infestation on BC fish farms thanks to a successful four-year Freedom of Information battle led by environmental groups T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and Ecojustice. In a March 1 Order, BC’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner decided the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands could no longer conceal records of sea lice infestations, based on information gathered during visits to salmon farms.
The decision rejects the assertions of fish farm companies that release of the data would harm proprietary commercial interests. The decision acknowledges that release of the records may harm the reputations of fish farms but held that the Act does not protect companies from the public relations fallout that results from the public knowing the true nature of the companies’ activities and impacts on the environment. The decision also held that the Ministry could not give into the threats of companies to simply withhold information, noting that the Ministry does have regulatory powers it could exercise if it chose.
The decision means greater independent scientific inquiry and public oversight into the highly contentious practice of open-net salmon farming along BC’s West Coast. With a high incidence of sea lice and disease on farms, several scientists have predicted that the industry will lead to the extinction of some wild salmon runs in the Broughton Archipelago.
The Freedom of Information decision was a long-awaited victory for the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and Ecojustice. The Ministry has repeatedly refused to hand over the information, first requested in 2004, arguing that any observations made by government staff during the farm visits were subject to secrecy laws governing commercial information.
Christensen said the stance was a sign of dangerously skewed priorities. “The province has been compromising public interest by protecting these companies. The government should be defenders of the public’s right to know, not the agents shielding companies from scrutiny of environmental performance.”
Unfortunately, transparency into fish farming will continue to be a problem even with improved access to government records,” said David Lane, executive director of T.Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation. “Although we now have access to government audit data, the real site-by-site sea lice and disease monitoring data is collected by the BC Salmon Farmers’ Association, not the government. Without access to this information, the public and the government have no idea if parasite or disease levels are dangerously high on a particular farm and the government has no ability to enforce its Sea Lice Management Strategy.”
“This is just the beginning,” said Lane.” The whole process of salmon farm reporting has to change so the public, not the companies are in control.”
For more information, please contact:
Randy Christensen, Lawyer, Ecojustice (604) 685-5618 ext. 234 David Lane, Executive Director, T.Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation (604) 519-3635 cell: 604-258-8119
http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-cent...gains-long-awaited-access-to-sea-lice-records
full decision at:
http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2010/OrderF10-06.pdf
p.23:"[93] The Ministry submits that there is no statutory duty on the part of fish farms to provide mortality breakdowns or the information dealing with sea lice monitoring. It contends there is also no obligation on the fish farms to provide divers or boats to bring up fish samples for inspection and analysis.63 The Ministry does concede, however, that the cumulative effect of the Aquaculture Regulation is that Ministry inspectors, under those regulations, could potentially access certain aspects of the requested information. This information would include the “year and quarter” and site inventory information under heading 1 and the “Fish Health Events/Actions” under heading 2 in Appendix A. The Ministry adds that, although this information could be collected by inspectors under the Aquaculture Regulation, “the fact remains that none of the information at issue in this inquiry was collected by inspectors under such powers</u>.”64"
p24-26:
"[95] Mainstream flatly submits that it will not supply similar information when it is in the public interest that similar information continues to be supplied.66 Mainstream does not explicitly say there is no authority under which it may be compelled to provide data for the audit.
[96] Marine Harvest submits there are “no regulations or laws” which require it to release the information it gives to Ministry veterinarians or designates during on-site visits. It states that release of the requested information would result in Mainstream no longer supplying the requested information.67
[97] Creative Salmon argues that it provides audit information on a voluntary basis and if the applicant#8223;s access request is granted it will “immediately cease to volunteer further information to the Ministry.”68
[98] Grieg Seafoods contends there is no statutory requirement that allows the collection of audit data and that it only provides data on the understanding the data would be kept confidential. It states it will no longer submit the data if the applicant#8223;s access request is granted.69
[99] The applicant argues that a public body cannot refuse to release information on the basis of s. 21(1)(c)(ii) if the third party can be compelled by the public body to provide the information. It points to Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner),70 where the Court upheld an order of the former Commissioner on the basis that, because the company could be compelled to supply the information, the refusal to release the information under s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not justified.
[100] In this case, the applicant submits:71
Under the BC Fisheries Act, section 12 of the Aquaculture Regulations gives inspectors various powers, including the power to enter a fish farm to investigate compliance with the Act and the terms and conditions of the aquaculture licence.
The Fisheries Act provides the authority for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) to licence fish farms (s. 13(5)), set the terms and conditions of those licences (s.16(d)), and to regulate on-site activities.
The Fisheries Act also provides for the power to make regulations for “safe and orderly aquaculture” (s. 26(2)(a)).
The BC Finfish Aquaculture Licensing Policy contains this provision:
13. Reporting and Monitoring
MAL Fisheries Inspectors will ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act, Aquaculture Regulation, and terms and conditions of the aquaculture licence through reporting and the conducting of regular inspections and other monitoring activities as appropriate, including spot audits.
The General Terms of an Aquaculture Licence72 include the requirements that the licencee:
2(9) keep records adequate to allow an Aquaculture Inspector, an Inspector of Fisheries or a Conservation Officer to determine if the holder is complying with the terms of this licence, the Aquaculture Regulation and Fisheries Act;
2(10) make available to an Aquaculture Inspector, an Inspector of Fisheries or a Conservation Officer, the records referred to in sub-paragraph 2(9);
…
2(12) deliver to the Branch, in the form and at the interval determined by the Minister, any information required to determine compliance by the holder with the terms of this licence, the Aquaculture Regulation and Fisheries Act;
…2(15) comply with all laws, bylaws and orders of any competent government authorities which affect the aquaculture facility described herein.
Section 4(2) of the BC Animal Disease Control Act, gives an inspector the power to enter water, onto any land, water structure or premises etc. in the performance of a duty under the act. Section 11 gives the inspector power at any time to inspect an animal for disease. The definition of animal includes aquatic animals that are grown and cultivated for commercial purposes.
[101] The applicant argues the Ministry has already imposed a self-described “mandatory” requirement that all fish farms have an FHMP as a condition of their license. The applicant submits that the FHMP requires that, among other things, each farm site monitor and record mortalities, diseases, sea lice numbers and treatment.73 This information is conveyed to the Association, which then sends quarterly reports to the Ministry. The Ministry then activates its Sea Lice Monitoring and Audit program to carry out randomly selected spot audits of farms, to ensure compliance with the FHMP. The applicant submits that, while the FHMP is not specified in legislation, a license is a statutory creation and the Ministry has the statutory ability to set terms and conditions required under it. Clearly, the applicant submits, the Ministry has the ability to compel the mandatory production of this information under the FHMP, even if the information is currently filtered through the Association."
p. 27-28:
"[105] Insofar as the information under heading 2 is concerned, I have no difficulty finding that this information is subject to compulsory inspection pursuant to the Aquaculture Regulation and the Ministry concedes as much in its submission. I find no merit</u> in the Ministry#8223;s submission that there is no compulsory inspection here because Ministry veterinarians were asking for these records rather than “inspectors”. At the very least, the Ministry has within its authority the “prospect” of employing compulsion to access these records through its inspectors. The same can be said of the information the Ministry concedes has the potential to be inspected under heading 1, i.e., “Year and quarter” and the site inventory. I find that the balance of the information under heading 1, related to fish mortalities and their breakdown, is similarly subject to regulatory authority. The Aquaculture Regulation states:
Inventory records
5(1) For each finfish aquaculture facility of a holder, the holder must maintain accurate written records of the following for each containment structure in the aquaculture facility:
…
(b) the weekly finfish mortalities, including the causes of the mortalities and the numbers attributable to each cause of mortality;
[106] Section 12 of the Aquaculture Regulation, in turn, provides that an inspector may attend on the fish farm and require the production of these records. In summary, I find that the information under heading 1 and 2 is clearly the subject of regulatory authority and therefore I reject arguments these records are produced on a purely voluntary basis.
[107] What remains for consideration is the assertion that disclosure of the sea lice data, counted and categorized by the fish farms, would result in similar information no longer being supplied when it is in the public interest that similar information continues to be supplied.
[108] In my view, the position taken by the Ministry and third parties that such information is, in essence, voluntarily provided and would not be provided in future if the applicant#8223;s access request is granted, does not accord with the evidence before me</u>"
p. 31: "[123] The third argument advanced by the Ministry and some, but not all, of the third parties is that disclosure of the requested records will result in the third parties suffering undue financial losses. The following submission by Marine Harvest is reflective of the third party submissions in this case:83
Site specific fish health and sea lice information used out of context and misinterpreted could, and has been used in the past to bring pressure to bear on regulating authorities. This pressure resulted in Marine Harvest Canada having to move one site, twice. The cost to Marine Harvest Canada of this move was $1.0 million. Release of the site specific fish health and sea lice information would only escalate this type of pressure and subsequent cost to Marine Harvest Canada…Marine Harvest is a publicly traded company on the Oslo Stock Exchange and as such, corporate reputation is very important in maintaining share price and shareholder loyalty. Buyers of Marine Harvest Canada salmon have been the targets of campaigns which attempt to taint the corporate reputation of Marine Harvest Canada and convince buyers and consumers to stop purchasing Marine Harvest Canada salmon. Release of the site specific fish health and sea lice information would result in more of these types of attacks. Information would be used out of context and misinterpreted, with the end result that Marine Harvest"
p.33: "[130] If the Ministry and third parties are of the view that the disclosed information requires further elaboration and “context” then each is capable of expressing those elaborations publicly. If the applicant, or anyone else for that matter, wishes to use accessed information to praise or criticize industry regulation for example that is their prerogative in a democratic society. I note the words of Commissioner Loukidelis in Order 01-52:90
In my view, it does not sit well for the Ministry to object, as its submissions implicitly do, to disclosure under the Act on the basis that the disputed information will be used to publicly criticize the work of the Ministry. It is entirely appropriate for an applicant – and especially public interest groups – to exercise the right of access under the Act in order to obtain information for the purpose of assessing and criticizing the performance of government. An express purpose of the Act, articulated in s. 2(1), is to “make public bodies more accountable to the public … by giving the public a right of access to records”.
[131] For all of these reasons I find that the Ministry and third parties have failed to prove that they meet the test set out in s. 21(1)(c)(iii)."
Public gains long-awaited access to sea lice records
Submitted by Kori Brus — Mar 01, 2010 02:28 PM
Environmental groups end fish farm secrecy with Freedom of Information win
Mar 01, 2010
VANCOUVER – The public will finally get to see to the scale of sea lice and disease infestation on BC fish farms thanks to a successful four-year Freedom of Information battle led by environmental groups T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and Ecojustice. In a March 1 Order, BC’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner decided the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands could no longer conceal records of sea lice infestations, based on information gathered during visits to salmon farms.
The decision rejects the assertions of fish farm companies that release of the data would harm proprietary commercial interests. The decision acknowledges that release of the records may harm the reputations of fish farms but held that the Act does not protect companies from the public relations fallout that results from the public knowing the true nature of the companies’ activities and impacts on the environment. The decision also held that the Ministry could not give into the threats of companies to simply withhold information, noting that the Ministry does have regulatory powers it could exercise if it chose.
The decision means greater independent scientific inquiry and public oversight into the highly contentious practice of open-net salmon farming along BC’s West Coast. With a high incidence of sea lice and disease on farms, several scientists have predicted that the industry will lead to the extinction of some wild salmon runs in the Broughton Archipelago.
The Freedom of Information decision was a long-awaited victory for the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and Ecojustice. The Ministry has repeatedly refused to hand over the information, first requested in 2004, arguing that any observations made by government staff during the farm visits were subject to secrecy laws governing commercial information.
Christensen said the stance was a sign of dangerously skewed priorities. “The province has been compromising public interest by protecting these companies. The government should be defenders of the public’s right to know, not the agents shielding companies from scrutiny of environmental performance.”
Unfortunately, transparency into fish farming will continue to be a problem even with improved access to government records,” said David Lane, executive director of T.Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation. “Although we now have access to government audit data, the real site-by-site sea lice and disease monitoring data is collected by the BC Salmon Farmers’ Association, not the government. Without access to this information, the public and the government have no idea if parasite or disease levels are dangerously high on a particular farm and the government has no ability to enforce its Sea Lice Management Strategy.”
“This is just the beginning,” said Lane.” The whole process of salmon farm reporting has to change so the public, not the companies are in control.”
For more information, please contact:
Randy Christensen, Lawyer, Ecojustice (604) 685-5618 ext. 234 David Lane, Executive Director, T.Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation (604) 519-3635 cell: 604-258-8119
http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-cent...gains-long-awaited-access-to-sea-lice-records
full decision at:
http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2010/OrderF10-06.pdf
p.23:"[93] The Ministry submits that there is no statutory duty on the part of fish farms to provide mortality breakdowns or the information dealing with sea lice monitoring. It contends there is also no obligation on the fish farms to provide divers or boats to bring up fish samples for inspection and analysis.63 The Ministry does concede, however, that the cumulative effect of the Aquaculture Regulation is that Ministry inspectors, under those regulations, could potentially access certain aspects of the requested information. This information would include the “year and quarter” and site inventory information under heading 1 and the “Fish Health Events/Actions” under heading 2 in Appendix A. The Ministry adds that, although this information could be collected by inspectors under the Aquaculture Regulation, “the fact remains that none of the information at issue in this inquiry was collected by inspectors under such powers</u>.”64"
p24-26:
"[95] Mainstream flatly submits that it will not supply similar information when it is in the public interest that similar information continues to be supplied.66 Mainstream does not explicitly say there is no authority under which it may be compelled to provide data for the audit.
[96] Marine Harvest submits there are “no regulations or laws” which require it to release the information it gives to Ministry veterinarians or designates during on-site visits. It states that release of the requested information would result in Mainstream no longer supplying the requested information.67
[97] Creative Salmon argues that it provides audit information on a voluntary basis and if the applicant#8223;s access request is granted it will “immediately cease to volunteer further information to the Ministry.”68
[98] Grieg Seafoods contends there is no statutory requirement that allows the collection of audit data and that it only provides data on the understanding the data would be kept confidential. It states it will no longer submit the data if the applicant#8223;s access request is granted.69
[99] The applicant argues that a public body cannot refuse to release information on the basis of s. 21(1)(c)(ii) if the third party can be compelled by the public body to provide the information. It points to Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner),70 where the Court upheld an order of the former Commissioner on the basis that, because the company could be compelled to supply the information, the refusal to release the information under s. 21(1) of FIPPA was not justified.
[100] In this case, the applicant submits:71
Under the BC Fisheries Act, section 12 of the Aquaculture Regulations gives inspectors various powers, including the power to enter a fish farm to investigate compliance with the Act and the terms and conditions of the aquaculture licence.
The Fisheries Act provides the authority for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) to licence fish farms (s. 13(5)), set the terms and conditions of those licences (s.16(d)), and to regulate on-site activities.
The Fisheries Act also provides for the power to make regulations for “safe and orderly aquaculture” (s. 26(2)(a)).
The BC Finfish Aquaculture Licensing Policy contains this provision:
13. Reporting and Monitoring
MAL Fisheries Inspectors will ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act, Aquaculture Regulation, and terms and conditions of the aquaculture licence through reporting and the conducting of regular inspections and other monitoring activities as appropriate, including spot audits.
The General Terms of an Aquaculture Licence72 include the requirements that the licencee:
2(9) keep records adequate to allow an Aquaculture Inspector, an Inspector of Fisheries or a Conservation Officer to determine if the holder is complying with the terms of this licence, the Aquaculture Regulation and Fisheries Act;
2(10) make available to an Aquaculture Inspector, an Inspector of Fisheries or a Conservation Officer, the records referred to in sub-paragraph 2(9);
…
2(12) deliver to the Branch, in the form and at the interval determined by the Minister, any information required to determine compliance by the holder with the terms of this licence, the Aquaculture Regulation and Fisheries Act;
…2(15) comply with all laws, bylaws and orders of any competent government authorities which affect the aquaculture facility described herein.
Section 4(2) of the BC Animal Disease Control Act, gives an inspector the power to enter water, onto any land, water structure or premises etc. in the performance of a duty under the act. Section 11 gives the inspector power at any time to inspect an animal for disease. The definition of animal includes aquatic animals that are grown and cultivated for commercial purposes.
[101] The applicant argues the Ministry has already imposed a self-described “mandatory” requirement that all fish farms have an FHMP as a condition of their license. The applicant submits that the FHMP requires that, among other things, each farm site monitor and record mortalities, diseases, sea lice numbers and treatment.73 This information is conveyed to the Association, which then sends quarterly reports to the Ministry. The Ministry then activates its Sea Lice Monitoring and Audit program to carry out randomly selected spot audits of farms, to ensure compliance with the FHMP. The applicant submits that, while the FHMP is not specified in legislation, a license is a statutory creation and the Ministry has the statutory ability to set terms and conditions required under it. Clearly, the applicant submits, the Ministry has the ability to compel the mandatory production of this information under the FHMP, even if the information is currently filtered through the Association."
p. 27-28:
"[105] Insofar as the information under heading 2 is concerned, I have no difficulty finding that this information is subject to compulsory inspection pursuant to the Aquaculture Regulation and the Ministry concedes as much in its submission. I find no merit</u> in the Ministry#8223;s submission that there is no compulsory inspection here because Ministry veterinarians were asking for these records rather than “inspectors”. At the very least, the Ministry has within its authority the “prospect” of employing compulsion to access these records through its inspectors. The same can be said of the information the Ministry concedes has the potential to be inspected under heading 1, i.e., “Year and quarter” and the site inventory. I find that the balance of the information under heading 1, related to fish mortalities and their breakdown, is similarly subject to regulatory authority. The Aquaculture Regulation states:
Inventory records
5(1) For each finfish aquaculture facility of a holder, the holder must maintain accurate written records of the following for each containment structure in the aquaculture facility:
…
(b) the weekly finfish mortalities, including the causes of the mortalities and the numbers attributable to each cause of mortality;
[106] Section 12 of the Aquaculture Regulation, in turn, provides that an inspector may attend on the fish farm and require the production of these records. In summary, I find that the information under heading 1 and 2 is clearly the subject of regulatory authority and therefore I reject arguments these records are produced on a purely voluntary basis.
[107] What remains for consideration is the assertion that disclosure of the sea lice data, counted and categorized by the fish farms, would result in similar information no longer being supplied when it is in the public interest that similar information continues to be supplied.
[108] In my view, the position taken by the Ministry and third parties that such information is, in essence, voluntarily provided and would not be provided in future if the applicant#8223;s access request is granted, does not accord with the evidence before me</u>"
p. 31: "[123] The third argument advanced by the Ministry and some, but not all, of the third parties is that disclosure of the requested records will result in the third parties suffering undue financial losses. The following submission by Marine Harvest is reflective of the third party submissions in this case:83
Site specific fish health and sea lice information used out of context and misinterpreted could, and has been used in the past to bring pressure to bear on regulating authorities. This pressure resulted in Marine Harvest Canada having to move one site, twice. The cost to Marine Harvest Canada of this move was $1.0 million. Release of the site specific fish health and sea lice information would only escalate this type of pressure and subsequent cost to Marine Harvest Canada…Marine Harvest is a publicly traded company on the Oslo Stock Exchange and as such, corporate reputation is very important in maintaining share price and shareholder loyalty. Buyers of Marine Harvest Canada salmon have been the targets of campaigns which attempt to taint the corporate reputation of Marine Harvest Canada and convince buyers and consumers to stop purchasing Marine Harvest Canada salmon. Release of the site specific fish health and sea lice information would result in more of these types of attacks. Information would be used out of context and misinterpreted, with the end result that Marine Harvest"
p.33: "[130] If the Ministry and third parties are of the view that the disclosed information requires further elaboration and “context” then each is capable of expressing those elaborations publicly. If the applicant, or anyone else for that matter, wishes to use accessed information to praise or criticize industry regulation for example that is their prerogative in a democratic society. I note the words of Commissioner Loukidelis in Order 01-52:90
In my view, it does not sit well for the Ministry to object, as its submissions implicitly do, to disclosure under the Act on the basis that the disputed information will be used to publicly criticize the work of the Ministry. It is entirely appropriate for an applicant – and especially public interest groups – to exercise the right of access under the Act in order to obtain information for the purpose of assessing and criticizing the performance of government. An express purpose of the Act, articulated in s. 2(1), is to “make public bodies more accountable to the public … by giving the public a right of access to records”.
[131] For all of these reasons I find that the Ministry and third parties have failed to prove that they meet the test set out in s. 21(1)(c)(iii)."
DFO reverses decision on salmon farm expansion
Project will not go forward without a proper Environmental Assessment
March 17, 2010
VANCOUVER – Facing the threat of a lawsuit from environmental groups, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has withdrawn its approval authorizing the expansion of the Doyle Island salmon farm near Port Hardy, B.C. The project, which sought to expand production at the facility by 37 percent, will now undergo an environmental assessment which will examine its impacts on wild salmon stocks and the health of the ocean.
Ecojustice, on behalf of Living Oceans Society, had threatened legal action against DFO unless a proper environmental assessment was triggered for the proposed expansion of the Doyle Island facility. On March 12, DFO announced that they will fulfill their legal obligation and undertake an environmental assessment of the facility, as required by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).
“This is the exactly the result we wanted,” said Will Soltau of Living Oceans Society. “By following the law DFO is ensuring that the potential threats of this expansion to wild salmon and the marine environment can be examined.”
In originally approving the expansion of the Doyle Island farm, DFO neglected their mandatory duties under CEAA by not conducting a new assessment for the facility. Instead, DFO used an outdated assessment that only looked at the farm’s current production of 2,550 tonnes and not the proposed expansion that would increase production to 3,500 tonnes.
“The law is clear that fish farms require an environmental assessment prior to undergoing significant expansion,” said Ecojustice staff lawyer Judah Harrison. “We’re relieved that DFO has done the right thing and will be conducting an assessment of the expansion at Doyle Island.”
Justice Hinkson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered a restriction on the issuance of both new fish farm licences and the expansion of existing fish farms on January 26, 2010. Two days after this ruling the Province of B.C. placed a moratorium on the issuance of new finfish aquaculture licences.
The federal government has also launched a Commission of Inquiry into the 2009 collapse of the Fraser River sockeye salmon. The Cohen Commission is currently underway and is examining a range of factors contributing to the collapse, including the impact of salmon farming on wild stocks.
For more information contact:
Will Soltau, Salmon Farm Campaign Local Coordinator, Living Oceans Society 250-230-1185
Judah Harrison, Staff Lawyer, Ecojustice 604-685-5618 ext. 232
Kori Brus, Communications Director, Ecojustice 416-368-7533 ext. 25
http://www.livingoceans.org/media/news03161001.aspx
Project will not go forward without a proper Environmental Assessment
March 17, 2010
VANCOUVER – Facing the threat of a lawsuit from environmental groups, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has withdrawn its approval authorizing the expansion of the Doyle Island salmon farm near Port Hardy, B.C. The project, which sought to expand production at the facility by 37 percent, will now undergo an environmental assessment which will examine its impacts on wild salmon stocks and the health of the ocean.
Ecojustice, on behalf of Living Oceans Society, had threatened legal action against DFO unless a proper environmental assessment was triggered for the proposed expansion of the Doyle Island facility. On March 12, DFO announced that they will fulfill their legal obligation and undertake an environmental assessment of the facility, as required by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).
“This is the exactly the result we wanted,” said Will Soltau of Living Oceans Society. “By following the law DFO is ensuring that the potential threats of this expansion to wild salmon and the marine environment can be examined.”
In originally approving the expansion of the Doyle Island farm, DFO neglected their mandatory duties under CEAA by not conducting a new assessment for the facility. Instead, DFO used an outdated assessment that only looked at the farm’s current production of 2,550 tonnes and not the proposed expansion that would increase production to 3,500 tonnes.
“The law is clear that fish farms require an environmental assessment prior to undergoing significant expansion,” said Ecojustice staff lawyer Judah Harrison. “We’re relieved that DFO has done the right thing and will be conducting an assessment of the expansion at Doyle Island.”
Justice Hinkson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered a restriction on the issuance of both new fish farm licences and the expansion of existing fish farms on January 26, 2010. Two days after this ruling the Province of B.C. placed a moratorium on the issuance of new finfish aquaculture licences.
The federal government has also launched a Commission of Inquiry into the 2009 collapse of the Fraser River sockeye salmon. The Cohen Commission is currently underway and is examining a range of factors contributing to the collapse, including the impact of salmon farming on wild stocks.
For more information contact:
Will Soltau, Salmon Farm Campaign Local Coordinator, Living Oceans Society 250-230-1185
Judah Harrison, Staff Lawyer, Ecojustice 604-685-5618 ext. 232
Kori Brus, Communications Director, Ecojustice 416-368-7533 ext. 25
http://www.livingoceans.org/media/news03161001.aspx
I thought this sounded eerily familiar...
Scientists with ties to industry more likely to write nice things about drugs
Module body
Thu Mar 18, 8:48 PM
By Helen Branswell, Medical Reporter, The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT
TORONTO - Medical authors with ties to diabetes drug makers were more likely to publish favourable articles on a controversial diabetes medication than authors who had no such ties, a new study reveals.
Over 90 per cent of scientists who wrote positively about the drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) in studies, commentaries and letters published in medical journals had financial relationships with drug companies, said the study, written by researchers from the department of internal medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Authors with financial ties to industry were more than three times more likely to write favourably about the drug than those who didn't. And those with industry ties who wrote commentaries were six times more likely to back continued use of the drug, which came under fire after a large review published in 2007 linked the GlaxoSmithKline drug to a significant increased risk of heart attack.
The scientists who did this new study, published Friday in the journal BMJ, said they couldn't prove financial ties provoked the positive reviews.
But people who study the influence the pharmaceutical industry wields over scientific publishing were more inclined to draw the link.
"My conclusion is that their conclusion is wimpy," said Dr. Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and a long-time critic of the ties between drug companies and the medical profession.
"What else could that association be related to?" asked Kassirer, author of "On The Take: How Medicine's Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health."
"At face value, when you see results like this, you have an extremely strong suspicion that the industry affiliation had an influence on their opinion."
After the link between the drug and heart attacks surfaced, controversy raged in the medical literature about the extent to which the risk was real. Dr. Victor Montori and some colleagues at the Mayo decided to try to see whether industry ties were influencing the debate.
They found 202 studies, reviews, commentaries and letters to journals discussing Avandia and heart attack risk, then looked for conflict of interest declarations from the authors.
Only 53 per cent of the publications had conflict of interest declarations - surprising in itself as a number of journals now routinely insist on collecting and publishing that information.
For the record, the Mayo authors declared that they had no financial ties to any commercial entities that might have an interest in the subject of their study and nor did any of their spouses, partners or children.
Montori, a diabetes specialist, and his team found that of the authors for whom conflict of interest statements were available, 90 had a financial conflict. That represents 45 per cent of the authors of the studies for which conflict statements were available.
In some cases, some authors declared no conflict of interest, but the team found they actually had undeclared financial ties by looking up other scientific papers those researchers had written.
"Authors who were unfavourable on the issue of rosiglitazone (Avandia) safety were largely free of identifiable financial conflicts of interest," Montori and his colleagues wrote.
In addition to expressing concern about how the scientific record may have been skewed by the financial interests of some researchers, the Mayo team said the findings suggest journals need to be more demanding of their authors.
"We are hoping for the science to be the science. But in this case, science is conducted by scientists. And scientists are human. And humans have ways of introducing their own preferences into things," Montori said in an interview.
"If you're trying to be an evidenced based clinician and you want your practice to reflect the science, the biggest enemies are the forces that distort ... the scientific record."
"And there is good evidence that for-profit interests have both contributed extensively to the record - and for that we must all be grateful - and have also contributed significantly to its distortion, for which they should be severely punished."
Dr. Joel Lexchin, a pharmaceutical industry critic who teaches at Toronto's York University, said researchers, journals, drug companies and governments all play a part in how the pharmaceutical industry has been allowed to influence science.
"All of them bear some part of the responsibility," Lexchin said. "And who's left in the middle not knowing what to do are the doctors who are prescribing these drugs and the people who are taking them."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100318/science/science_drugs_conflicted_interests
Scientists with ties to industry more likely to write nice things about drugs
Module body
Thu Mar 18, 8:48 PM
By Helen Branswell, Medical Reporter, The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT
TORONTO - Medical authors with ties to diabetes drug makers were more likely to publish favourable articles on a controversial diabetes medication than authors who had no such ties, a new study reveals.
Over 90 per cent of scientists who wrote positively about the drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) in studies, commentaries and letters published in medical journals had financial relationships with drug companies, said the study, written by researchers from the department of internal medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Authors with financial ties to industry were more than three times more likely to write favourably about the drug than those who didn't. And those with industry ties who wrote commentaries were six times more likely to back continued use of the drug, which came under fire after a large review published in 2007 linked the GlaxoSmithKline drug to a significant increased risk of heart attack.
The scientists who did this new study, published Friday in the journal BMJ, said they couldn't prove financial ties provoked the positive reviews.
But people who study the influence the pharmaceutical industry wields over scientific publishing were more inclined to draw the link.
"My conclusion is that their conclusion is wimpy," said Dr. Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and a long-time critic of the ties between drug companies and the medical profession.
"What else could that association be related to?" asked Kassirer, author of "On The Take: How Medicine's Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health."
"At face value, when you see results like this, you have an extremely strong suspicion that the industry affiliation had an influence on their opinion."
After the link between the drug and heart attacks surfaced, controversy raged in the medical literature about the extent to which the risk was real. Dr. Victor Montori and some colleagues at the Mayo decided to try to see whether industry ties were influencing the debate.
They found 202 studies, reviews, commentaries and letters to journals discussing Avandia and heart attack risk, then looked for conflict of interest declarations from the authors.
Only 53 per cent of the publications had conflict of interest declarations - surprising in itself as a number of journals now routinely insist on collecting and publishing that information.
For the record, the Mayo authors declared that they had no financial ties to any commercial entities that might have an interest in the subject of their study and nor did any of their spouses, partners or children.
Montori, a diabetes specialist, and his team found that of the authors for whom conflict of interest statements were available, 90 had a financial conflict. That represents 45 per cent of the authors of the studies for which conflict statements were available.
In some cases, some authors declared no conflict of interest, but the team found they actually had undeclared financial ties by looking up other scientific papers those researchers had written.
"Authors who were unfavourable on the issue of rosiglitazone (Avandia) safety were largely free of identifiable financial conflicts of interest," Montori and his colleagues wrote.
In addition to expressing concern about how the scientific record may have been skewed by the financial interests of some researchers, the Mayo team said the findings suggest journals need to be more demanding of their authors.
"We are hoping for the science to be the science. But in this case, science is conducted by scientists. And scientists are human. And humans have ways of introducing their own preferences into things," Montori said in an interview.
"If you're trying to be an evidenced based clinician and you want your practice to reflect the science, the biggest enemies are the forces that distort ... the scientific record."
"And there is good evidence that for-profit interests have both contributed extensively to the record - and for that we must all be grateful - and have also contributed significantly to its distortion, for which they should be severely punished."
Dr. Joel Lexchin, a pharmaceutical industry critic who teaches at Toronto's York University, said researchers, journals, drug companies and governments all play a part in how the pharmaceutical industry has been allowed to influence science.
"All of them bear some part of the responsibility," Lexchin said. "And who's left in the middle not knowing what to do are the doctors who are prescribing these drugs and the people who are taking them."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100318/science/science_drugs_conflicted_interests
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Oh c'mon Agent do you really think that only scientists with ties to industry write favourable thinbgs. Title should be scientists with ties to any group tend to say nice things about the groups actions.
I wonder how much they were paid for this study. As if you would have to do a study to figure this out.
I wonder how much they were paid for this study. As if you would have to do a study to figure this out.
Similar threads
