Fish Farm trouble in BC.

[terrin]

Here are some 2013 stats:
Sport Fishing How We $$tack Up – Feb 6, 2013
Posted by me under General
Here are my column from this week and the table of figures that shows sport fishing is the biggest sector of the fish industries.

Last week’s column highlighted a study that says fish farms decrease wild salmonid populations on average by 50%. This is where all the wild salmon are going, why the ywest coast of Van Isle has only 6,000 wild spawning chinook from the San Juan River to Quatsino Sound. Shame on DFO.

Sport Fishing – How We $$tack Up

A report I have been waiting for for five years has finally come out. BC Stats, a BC government agency, has released its 2011 stats on the part of our economy related to fish, seafood, processing and sport fishing. These are the only stats you should believe as they rigorously eliminate the effects of inflation, double counting, and they lay out their realistic multipliers and caveats completely.

Other estimates, such as those from DFO, the BC government, CFIA and fish farms, are blue sky hopes, and not very grounded in reality. The BC Stats punch line is: sport fishing is far and away the most important part of our province’s fish economy, and at $325.7 (all figures in millions and constant 2002 dollars) is 48.8% of the $667.4 contributed to BC’s Gross Domestic Product, with the smallest sector being aquaculture at $61.9 or only 9.3%.

As the biggest, sport fishing deserves most of the money spent on what we want. Commercial sector employment has dropped 50% in the past decade and currently employs 1,400. The drop is largely related to lack of fish, and that is DFO’s responsibility. We have waited almost 40 years for it to implement the Salmon Enhancement Program properly, and put more salmon in the sea. It needs to come clean with the Cohen Commission Report, by severing its conflicting ties with fish farms (three months after the Report release and there still is no reply from DFO), take the precautionary principle seriously, implement the Wild Salmon Policy, bring in a new coastal director general, do the habitat work it has never done completely and put fish farms on land.

Employment in all aquaculture types is 1,700 positions or 12.2% of the fishing sector total of 13,900, while sport fishing is a whopping 8,400 positions for 60.4% of the entire sector. We deserve our tax dollars spent on what we want and that is wild salmon. (No doubt commercial guys would agree). In terms of wages and salaries, sport fishing pays out big, too, at $218.9 – over 57% of the entire sector. It is only $55.7 for all of aquaculture – 14.5%.

And do remember that DFO and the fish farms have in the past liked to say it is 6,000 employment and $800 Million. Sorry, only BC Stats is rigourous and reliable. And remember that in late 2011, the large fish farms released their actual employment and it counted up to only 820 actual jobs – even below the BC Stats figures. Marine Harvest had to let staff go and has had a rocky 2012, losing millions to Kudoa in the past two years (makes fish flesh turn to mush). Do note that wages for the commercial sector were only $8.4, however, an additional $70, is warranted because owner/operator profits are not technically ‘wages/salaries’. Again declining wages point to a lack of wild fish – a DFO responsibility. See a table of all the figures at: www.catchsalmonbc.com.

In 2011 dollars, total revenues are: Commercial – $344.8; Processing – $427.5; Sport Fishing – $936.5 and, aquaculture – $469.0, meaning that sport fishing, at 43.0% of the $2.2 billion total, is twice – or more – the size of any of the other sectors. And we don’t buy much farmed salmon – I calculate less than $5 per person per year. So, DFO: show us the – wild salmon – money!

Go to www.fishfarmnews.blogspot for the summary table. I could not load the table properly on this site, so have made it the first item on the farmfarmnews site.

This is the BC Stats document that I used:
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Statis...stry/FisheriesAquacultureHuntingTrapping.aspx.
.

 

[Birdsnest]

The numbers are still dwarfed when compared to other industries. Hey! don't get me wrong I hate big business just as much as the next guy. I have a couple of small companies and its a guarantee that the government will not bail me out if i needed it. Although there are small business grants galore out there available but if I received such moneys I would be a villain like the big corporations.

 

[Birdsnest]

Here are some 2013 stats:
Sport Fishing How We $$tack Up – Feb 6, 2013
Posted by me under General
Here are my column from this week and the table of figures that shows sport fishing is the biggest sector of the fish industries.

Last week’s column highlighted a study that says fish farms decrease wild salmonid populations on average by 50%. This is where all the wild salmon are going, why the ywest coast of Van Isle has only 6,000 wild spawning chinook from the San Juan River to Quatsino Sound. Shame on DFO.

Sport Fishing – How We $$tack Up

A report I have been waiting for for five years has finally come out. BC Stats, a BC government agency, has released its 2011 stats on the part of our economy related to fish, seafood, processing and sport fishing. These are the only stats you should believe as they rigorously eliminate the effects of inflation, double counting, and they lay out their realistic multipliers and caveats completely.

Other estimates, such as those from DFO, the BC government, CFIA and fish farms, are blue sky hopes, and not very grounded in reality. The BC Stats punch line is: sport fishing is far and away the most important part of our province’s fish economy, and at $325.7 (all figures in millions and constant 2002 dollars) is 48.8% of the $667.4 contributed to BC’s Gross Domestic Product, with the smallest sector being aquaculture at $61.9 or only 9.3%.

As the biggest, sport fishing deserves most of the money spent on what we want. Commercial sector employment has dropped 50% in the past decade and currently employs 1,400. The drop is largely related to lack of fish, and that is DFO’s responsibility. We have waited almost 40 years for it to implement the Salmon Enhancement Program properly, and put more salmon in the sea. It needs to come clean with the Cohen Commission Report, by severing its conflicting ties with fish farms (three months after the Report release and there still is no reply from DFO), take the precautionary principle seriously, implement the Wild Salmon Policy, bring in a new coastal director general, do the habitat work it has never done completely and put fish farms on land.

Employment in all aquaculture types is 1,700 positions or 12.2% of the fishing sector total of 13,900, while sport fishing is a whopping 8,400 positions for 60.4% of the entire sector. We deserve our tax dollars spent on what we want and that is wild salmon. (No doubt commercial guys would agree). In terms of wages and salaries, sport fishing pays out big, too, at $218.9 – over 57% of the entire sector. It is only $55.7 for all of aquaculture – 14.5%.

And do remember that DFO and the fish farms have in the past liked to say it is 6,000 employment and $800 Million. Sorry, only BC Stats is rigourous and reliable. And remember that in late 2011, the large fish farms released their actual employment and it counted up to only 820 actual jobs – even below the BC Stats figures. Marine Harvest had to let staff go and has had a rocky 2012, losing millions to Kudoa in the past two years (makes fish flesh turn to mush). Do note that wages for the commercial sector were only $8.4, however, an additional $70, is warranted because owner/operator profits are not technically ‘wages/salaries’. Again declining wages point to a lack of wild fish – a DFO responsibility. See a table of all the figures at: www.catchsalmonbc.com.

In 2011 dollars, total revenues are: Commercial – $344.8; Processing – $427.5; Sport Fishing – $936.5 and, aquaculture – $469.0, meaning that sport fishing, at 43.0% of the $2.2 billion total, is twice – or more – the size of any of the other sectors. And we don’t buy much farmed salmon – I calculate less than $5 per person per year. So, DFO: show us the – wild salmon – money!

Go to www.fishfarmnews.blogspot for the summary table. I could not load the table properly on this site, so have made it the first item on the farmfarmnews site.

This is the BC Stats document that I used:
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Statis...stry/FisheriesAquacultureHuntingTrapping.aspx.
.

Can you show me where the sport fishing industry has shown the onus as an industry by proving peer review technical data proving they do less than minimal harm to wild salmon populations and steelhead. Same for commercial salmon fishing while we are at it. The agent insists that this should be mandatory for all industry so Im just wondering if some one can post that up for me here.
Terrans post clearly indicates that sport fishing is big business.

 

[terrin]

Saturday, 4 November 2017
Fish Farm Sewage, Fish Farm Chemicals, Fish Farm Antibiotics[/paste:font]

I have calculated that a conservative cost of fish farm sewage to the taxpayers of BC is $10.4 Billion. Of all the aspects of sewage treatment I have looked into, there is no industry that comes anywhere close to this amount of sewage damage.

And the other thing is that no one wants to pay for anyone else's sewage. Not a bean of it.

Here is the post where I show you how to calculate this figure. I have said my amount is conservative. The other end of a fair estimate is triple the $10.4B figure, that's how bad fish farms in BC are.

See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2017/02/fish-farm-sewage-huge-cost-to-bc.html.

The sewage output in BC by fish farms is greater than all the sewage put out by all the humans in BC, that's how bad fish farms are, and, again, that is at the $10.4 B level, not triple, as in the other end of the conservative range.

The same can be said about the sewage cost in other countries around the world that still allow in-ocean fish farms. Note that it is fair to say that everywhere in the world that the public has to put up with fish farms, they come to overwhelmingly reject them. See this post: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2017/05/global-citizens-call-for-on-land-fish.html.

And, now, here is a graphic that gives graphic evidence that fish farms in Scotland are one of the most abusing industries with respect to sewage release into pristine waters:



You will note that only waste recycling plants deal with more pollution than fish farms, that is how bad fish farms are. Fish farms are far above private and public sewage treatment.

And how badly are the fish infected with PCBs, chemicals, POPs and antibiotics compared with other types of meat products that we eat?

Look here, it is hard to miss:


Yes, you read it right. Farmed salmon has 10 times the chemical pollutants than any other food we eat for meat protein.

And just how much antibiotics are in BC farmed salmon? Read on, nearly 2000 km of pills laid end to end:



Hard to believe, yet true.

 

[Birdsnest]

I can never post "insert deflection here>" quick enough!!!! DC Reid. pffft. He has 27 followers, thats something.

 

[triplenickel]

Can you show me where the sport fishing industry has shown the onus as an industry by proving peer review technical data proving they do less than minimal harm to wild salmon populations and steelhead. Same for commercial salmon fishing while we are at it. The agent insists that this should be mandatory for all industry so Im just wondering if some one can post that up for me here.
Terrans post clearly indicates that sport fishing is big business.

Don't forget about total GHG emissions for the sector, everything from the car ride from Alberta, or the plane ride from Minnesota when calculating the impacts of this big business. We have to calculate the downstream emissions from oil in a pipeline and assign it back to the pipeline as part of it's review. Which is questionable logic at best as it takes the onus off the actual user but anyways fair is fair right? We all care about the environment and want things equal right? We're not just repeating the talking points drummed into our heads from Tides best practice manuals and the flavor of the day on Facebook right? Fair is fair right? I just brought this up in the Kinder Morgan thread asking why protestors weren't up in arms over Bombardier, the only response was a deflection to something about the feds. I didn't ask about the feds I asked about the protestors, I suspect he noted that difference but couldn't acknowledge the point so it was deflected instead.

Why are different industries held to different standards by the gov and the usual suspects here, where's the equity?

 

[fogged in]

I can never post "insert deflection here>" quick enough!!!! DC Reid. pffft. He has 27 followers, thats something.

Is that your best effort to respond to Terrin's post and DC Reid's article??
DC Reid's followers has nothing to do with the post and does in no way reflect how many people read his articles.
"I can never post "insert deflection here quick enough!!!! " Are you trying to say you have issues with what he has written???
DC Reid is a very well respected BC angling writer.
He lives in Victoria and is published in magazines and newspapers across North America.

 

[triplenickel]

Wasn't peer reviewed. Can't be valid.

 

[Birdsnest]

Im not sure triplenickle. The information in Reids blog while not backed up with science probably has been very useful for certain personality types. You know like people who don't vaccinate their children. It all probably quite factual to them. I wonder which posters here have not vaccinated their kids.

 

[agentaqua]

Thank you BN & 3x5 - you make some relevant contrasting points.

With regard to energy/carbon credits/GHG emissions - there are alternative energy sources that can be used to power pumps. People have been using CC for years and there is nothing technically-limiting - just financial.

With respect to fishing impacts - they are being addressed. DFO has a number of policies and initiatives focusing on these impacts:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/policies-politiques-eng.htm
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pol/PolicyStatement-EnoncePolitique-eng.pdf
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm

You can legitimately argue if politics is getting in the way of effectively applying fisheries management objectives - I am guessing most would argue it is - but that is a separate discussion - separate from the discussion over FF impacts.

 

[Birdsnest]

You can legitimately argue if politics is getting in the way of effectively applying fisheries management objectives - I am guessing most would argue it is - but that is a separate discussion - separate from the discussion over FF impacts.

Doesn't seem very logical or scientific to dismiss other industries as use for comparisons to better understand things like government funding and putting the onus on industry to prove they don't harm wild salmon. It is clear to me that the agent does not wish to acknowledge these comparisons. Very telling indeed.

 

[bones]

Not sure if it even worthwhile attempting to answer your questions, bones - as it seems to be fruitless when I keep answering questions with science that the other person chooses to ignore - or can't - or refuses to absorb. Not sure how many times I have answered the same questions - but this will be the last attempt on my end to do so:

There are other impacts to wild salmon from other sources besides FF. That does not excuse or justify those impacts from FFs since it is something we can and should have long ago acknowledged and dealt with. We are compelled by the Precautionary Approach to take them seriously. Since the FF lobbyists and lawyers have corrupted our regulatory agencies from the top end since the beginnings of the industry - industry workers and pundits either don't understand what and environmental assessment is - or don't want to know. There is substantial evidence from the world over (Norway, Ireland, Scotland, New Brunswick, NFLD, BC, etc) - some of which I have posted here - that there are numerous, documented impacts to wild salmon stocks. These impacts include - but are not limited to sea lice mortality, disease transfer, & benthic impacts. These impacts likely vary in space and time - and may have either a minor or a major impact depending on many factors. Over time - there have been demonstrated impacts to wild stocks - but in particular to the smaller, more vulnerable salmonids that hang-out nearer fish farms and interact - such as juvenile salmon and sea trout. Wrt sea lice - 2 genera are of concern to salmonids - Lepeophtheirus and Caligus spp. Quite a bit is know known about these interactions world-wide - some of that science I recently posted. Since the industry managed to avoid being made to look at background levels of sea lice before they started operating - people compare farmed areas with non-farmed areas to compare impacts. Generally, the prevalence of (average percent of the population with lice) lice is often 3-5% in non-farmed areas - with farmed areas often having prevalences above 90% some years in farmed areas. The intensity is the real indicator of host impacts - or the average number of lice per fish that have lice - with farmed areas having something a little bit more than 1 - while farmed areas often have 3-5 or better - occasionally 7 or above. When this is worked-out as a lice loading per gram of host - particularly the damaging motile lice stages - the morbidity is much more telling - and these are numbers and the discussions that the FF PR people never want to have anyone discuss, IMHO. Wrt disease transfer - the compromised regulators (CFIA, DFO, BCMoA) actively hide geographic co-ordinates and timing so no snoopy researchers can look at those impacts - but recently we have see some groundbreaking work done - particularly by Kristi Miller - amidst all the denials about PRv and HMSI from the industry. I also posted how both ISAv and PRv have been proven to be European/Norwegian strains - or recently diverged from these strains - again - something the industry pundits would rather have nobody discuss - given the only rational explanation as to how they got here on the West Coast - along with how CFIA magically makes weak positives into "false" positives w/o any supporting science. Another issue not discussed is how to do an environmental assessment rather than using highly flawed and indefensible siting criteria - since I am convinced the FF lawyers have threatened the regulators and government with suing them for lost revenue if they have to stop farming using open net-pens. That's a quick overview of how dirty this industry really is - and you can see it as one team verses another and refuse to read and acknowledge the science if you wish. That only demonstrates to me how inappropriate it is to have the same people promoting an industry - regulating it - something Justice Cohen also wanted changed.

Nice writing, and we all know that stocks are depleted across the coastline. How does this model affect say Barkley Sound or nootka sound or..... Fraser river?

 

[triplenickel]

Thank you BN & 3x5 - you make some relevant contrasting points.

With regard to energy/carbon credits/GHG emissions - there are alternative energy sources that can be used to power pumps. People have been using CC for years and there is nothing technically-limiting - just financial.

With respect to fishing impacts - they are being addressed. DFO has a number of policies and initiatives focusing on these impacts:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/policies-politiques-eng.htm
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pol/PolicyStatement-EnoncePolitique-eng.pdf
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/overview-cadre-eng.htm

You can legitimately argue if politics is getting in the way of effectively applying fisheries management objectives - I am guessing most would argue it is - but that is a separate discussion - separate from the discussion over FF impacts.

This is a deflection, I didn't mention GHG emissions from pumps, you know that. Unless you're talking about bilge pumps on guide boats which then of course you're right they could be powered by solar but fossil fuels make way more sense financially. I was more curious about your thoughts on the sport fishing sector and it's GHG emissions or industry supplied Peer reviewed sustainability reporting since the onus is on the industry. I've read that here several times about energy and aquaculture. Remember it's big business and should be treated as such if we truly care, are being fair and not being divided by outside interests.

I perused the links, the links for the policies that are regularly criticized as inadequate on this site. Quick digression so we're on the same page, did you show me those links because we're happy with DFO today? It's hard to keep up. I assume you posted them in an effort to show the sport fishing sector is being well managed by DFO and isn't in need of assessment equivalent to other industries of it's size? It isn't a separate issue for a separate thread, it's the same issue. You aren't happy with the regulatory process for a couple of sectors, yet when we apply the same magnifying glass to a sector you support we find they're being handled quite similarly with the same big gaps yet there's nothing but silence. Not even an acknowledgment from the usual suspects here and nary a kayak protest to be seen. Telling indeed.

I found a similar federal link for FF's, does it satisfy you to the same degree as the same link does for the sport fishing sector?

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/management-gestion/regs-eng.htm

 

[agentaqua]

It\s called accountability, BN. Each industry - like each individual - is accountable for their own actions - and not somebody else's. Environmental reviews determine "scoping" - the boundaries of the potential impacts - for that reason.
3x5 - reference BN's post #283.

 

[triplenickel]

It\s called accountability, BN. Each industry - like each individual - is accountable for their own actions - and not somebody else's. Environmental reviews determine "scoping" - the boundaries of the potential impacts - for that reason.
3x5 - reference BN's post #283.

I'm confused you didn't answer any questions, but referred me to another members post with the same questions that you also ignored. I don't understand the message.

 

[Birdsnest]

Can you show me where the sport fishing industry has shown the onus as an industry by proving peer review technical data proving they do less than minimal harm to wild salmon populations and steelhead. Same for commercial salmon fishing while we are at it. The agent insists that this should be mandatory for all industry so Im just wondering if some one can post that up for me here.
Terrans post clearly indicates that sport fishing is big business.

It\s called accountability, BN. Each industry - like each individual - is accountable for their own actions - and not somebody else's. Environmental reviews determine "scoping" - the boundaries of the potential impacts - for that reason.
3x5 - reference BN's post #283.

huh?

 

[bones]

I have calculated that a conservative cost of fish farm sewage to the taxpayers of BC is $10.4 Billion. Of all the aspects of sewage treatment I have looked into, there is no industry that comes anywhere close to this amount of sewage damage.

Where the sewage? You do know the difference between sewage and waste right?
Sewage in full of product not fit for humans. Fish waste is full of nitrates and phosphate's, some carbon. What information are you getting sewage from?

 

[GLG]

Don't forget about total GHG emissions for the sector, everything from the car ride from Alberta, or the plane ride from Minnesota when calculating the impacts of this big business. We have to calculate the downstream emissions from oil in a pipeline and assign it back to the pipeline as part of it's review. Which is questionable logic at best as it takes the onus off the actual user but anyways fair is fair right? We all care about the environment and want things equal right? We're not just repeating the talking points drummed into our heads from Tides best practice manuals and the flavor of the day on Facebook right? Fair is fair right? I just brought this up in the Kinder Morgan thread asking why protestors weren't up in arms over Bombardier, the only response was a deflection to something about the feds. I didn't ask about the feds I asked about the protestors, I suspect he noted that difference but couldn't acknowledge the point so it was deflected instead.

Why are different industries held to different standards by the gov and the usual suspects here, where's the equity?

This is a valid point. It's a major issue that is not easily addressed because of the many actors on the recreational sector compared to the few on the fish farm side. It can be addressed by two ways that I can think of. There maybe more but let's look at these two different ways. One way would be through what is known as "command and control", this is creating laws or regulation that compel actors to lower their emissions by fuel efficiency rules. In the recreational sector this is called CARB standards on outboard motors. Currently we are at CARB 3 and CARB 4 for most jurisdictions. Not sure if BC has a regulation outlining what can be sold in the province but this is just one method and is similar to the rules going forward in transportation industry. The second method is to capture the external cost by means of a tax on the product. That, as you know, is what the "carbon tax" is. It is a more efficient way because it changes the behavior of the actor by letting them make decisions based on price. The truth is that you need both to be effective because people are slow to change.

On a side note Bombardier's new jet is 35% more fuel efficient and can save customers travel distance because it can operate at smaller airports. It is years ahead of the competition.

 

[agentaqua]

I'm confused you didn't answer any questions, but referred me to another members post with the same questions that you also ignored. I don't understand the message.

...did you show me those links because we're happy with DFO today? It's hard to keep up. I assume you posted them in an effort to show the sport fishing sector is being well managed by DFO and isn't in need of assessment equivalent to other industries of it's size?

Answered that question by referring to BN's post:

Can you show me where the sport fishing industry has shown the onus as an industry by proving peer review technical data proving they do less than minimal harm to wild salmon populations and steelhead. Same for commercial salmon fishing while we are at it. The agent insists that this should be mandatory for all industry so Im just wondering if some one can post that up for me here.
Terrans post clearly indicates that sport fishing is big business.

The links were in reference to answering BN's questions. Hope that clears it up.

 

[agentaqua]

It\s called accountability, BN. Each industry - like each individual - is accountable for their own actions - and not somebody else's. Environmental reviews determine "scoping" - the boundaries of the potential impacts - for that reason.
3x5 - reference BN's post #283.

huh?

Answered this post:

Doesn't seem very logical or scientific to dismiss other industries as use for comparisons to better understand things like government funding and putting the onus on industry to prove they don't harm wild salmon. It is clear to me that the agent does not wish to acknowledge these comparisons. Very telling indeed.