DFO Taking Morton to Court for Protecting Wild Salmon

Whole in the Water

Well-Known Member
This makes no sense now that the Harper Govt is gone. Those that care about wild salmon need to support Morton on this so please write the DFO Minister to stop proceeding with the court case. To do this go to the "What can you do?" section of the post and you can quickly and easily send a pre-made email letter to the minister.

Here is the link: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2016/05/why-is-dfo-taking-me-to-court.html
____________________________________________________________________
Why Is DFO Taking Me To Court?

Last year I won a legal decision (thank you Ecojustice) prohibiting further transfer of farmed salmon carrying diseases into marine net-pens on the BC coast.

While common sense suggests putting diseased Atlantic farm salmon in the Pacific ocean is a bad idea, the Harper government and Marine Harvest appealed the decision.

We came to expect this kind action from Harper, but here's the shocker.

The Trudeau government is actually going through with this appeal! Is it in the interests of Canada to spend our tax dollars to assist the salmon farmers to put diseased fish in the ocean?

Furthermore, they are in such a rush that they can't wait for a Vancouver court date so have arranged for this to be heard in a court in Calgary May 26th!

The only sense I can make of this is perhaps the federal Liberal government has lost control of DFO, and the Harper - era bureaucrats are running the department. How is it possible Canada can join in an appeal with Marine Harvest to help them regain the right to put diseased Atlantic salmon into the Pacific?


Fisheries Minister Hunter Tootoo


Minister Hunter Tootoo is clearly dedicated to his Nunavut constituents, but there is something very wrong here. Would he go to court to assist companies seeking to put diseased fish in Rankin Inlet?

Furthermore, Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould was given the mandate to review all the Harper lawsuits and appeals she inherited. Did she overlook this one, or is she actually in support of diseased Atlantic salmon going into the waters of her ancestral home? I am at a loss.







What can you do?



I am very grateful to Leadnow for creating a platform where multiple emails can be sent to both the Minister of Fisheries, Hunter Tootoo and the Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

It is not enough to elect good governments, we have to walk beside them and make sure they hear from us at least as much as they hear from corporations, especially when they start drifting badly off course from their own mandates.

If you want to follow the progress of this bizarre situation, please check back here. Below you will find more detail on the case. And thank you to all who take the time to help with this.

I believe there is hope of working with this government to restore both wild salmon and our coastal economy and finally engage in an honourable and constructive government-to-government relationship with the First Nations.



Summary

The Canadian Federal Court Decision

The issue we put before the court was whether or not the aquaculture licences issued by the federal government of Canada to each salmon farm were consistent with the requirements of the Canada Fisheries Act.

Section 22 of the Fisheries Act stipulates that a licence cannot conflict with the Fisheries General Regulations.

The Federal Court of Canada found that the Minister of Fisheries had unlawfully given away the power of deciding whether diseased-farmed salmon smolts can be transferred from a hatchery into marine net pens, calling it . “...an unlawful delegation of ministerial discretion and ministerial responsibility for protection and conservation of the fisheries to Marine Harvest.”

Furthermore he ruled that the weight of evidence suggests that PRV causes HSMI, that it would be unreasonable to not to expect HSMI to appear in BC farmed salmon and that PRV infected farmed salmon may be a risk to wild salmon and farmed salmon and thus should not be put in the ocean pens.

The portions of the federal licence regarding use of diseased fish was struck down, the industry has 4 months to comply and if PRV-infected fish will continue to be used it will have to be approved by the Minister herself.

Below are quotes from the decision with the paragraph they are from in brackets [ ].



The Federal Court held that:

• DFO has issued licenses that allow the aquaculture industry to transfer fish with diseases or virus that may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish. And these licenses violate the law and the precautionary principle

  • DFO has been unlawfully allowing the aquaculture industry to transfer fish into net pens based on lower environmental standards than the law imposes

  • DFO has been unlawfully regulating the aquaculture industry based on lower environmental standards than the law imposes
  • DFO is in violation of its regulatory duty/responsibility to only allow the aquaculture industry to transfer fish that do not have any disease, virus or pathogen that may be harmful to wild fish

  • DFO has been allowing the aquaculture industry to transfer fish with diseases that have the potential to “severely impact” the fishery at an international level

  • DFO has abdicated its legal responsibilities to protect and conserve wild fish by handing off decisions about transferring fish with decisions to the industry

  • The law requires that “there be no transfers that may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish” due to diseases or viruses

    Piscine reovirus

    The judge acknowledged that it is not generally up to the courts to rule on science, however, the argument that piscine reovirus is low risk and endemic to BC wild salmon was made by Marine Harvest and so he ruled on PRV.
    • “... the weight of the expert evidence before this Court supports the view that PRV is the viral precursor to HSMI.”

    • The evidence before the Court demonstrates that there is a body of credible scientific study, conducted by respected scientists in different countries, establishing a causal relationship between PRV and HSMI.

    • the evidence, suggests that the disease agent (PRV) may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish, and therefore a “lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation

    • ... it would be an unreasonable inference to draw from the evidence that it will not appear in farmed Atlantic salmon on the Pacific coast.

      The Minister of Fisheries
      • What the Minister cannot do is make unsupported statements of science

      • The Minister is not, based on the evidence, erring on the side of caution

      • The current licenses issued to Marine Harvest and the aquaculture industry do not clearly require the industry to use objective, prescribed scientific measures in assessing disease – indeed the Court suggests that perhaps “all that is required is a quick glance in the tank to assess whether the fish are showing signs of disease”.

      • The current aquaculture licenses unlawfully allow the industry to focus on the health of the farmed fish stock, rather than the health of fisheries resources generally
The two reasons why Licence Condition 3.1(b)(ii) is unlawful

  1. Section 56(b) stipulates that no transfer may take place if they have “any disease or disease agent” that may be harmful to the transfer of fish.

  2. The licence condition, in contrast, allows transfers unless the fish show signs of clinical disease requiring treatment

  3. Section 56(b), anticipates testing for latent disease agents.

  4. The licence relieves Marine Harvest from this obligation imposed by law

    The Fisheries Act states no transfer of fish with a disease/agent that may be harmful. The licence stated no transfer of fish showing clinical disease. But HSMI lag time is 5-9 months. The licence would thus allow for transfer of a disease agent that does not show clinical sign at time of transfer. [63, 64]
- See more at: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/...-taking-me-to-court.html#sthash.B7IT1ZBE.dpuf
 
Wow. She really can't stop replacing the term virus with disease.
 
I really am past the " I know you are but what am I?" exchanges. My comment is directly related to the content of the topic. If my comment is incorrect I suspect you would have said so.
 
Haha. Read your own post. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black isn't it?Of course it is. But you don't want to hear that do you? Answer us this, You receive the same education as Mrs Morton? You have the same background and training? Or are you just a mouthpiece for the salmon farming industry? Seriously. Are you a mouth piece for the fish farming industry?
 
Starting at 11:55 in this video is Morton herself discussing her education. She seems very uncomfortable and doesn't seem to be very familiar with the school where she receive her smarts. She can't maintain the status of a registered professional biologist because of ethics issues. She basically can't stop slandering any of her peers that disagree with her. And you support this?
Trust me clint I aint much. I only did high school but I know the difference between virus and disease.
What are your qualifications clint?
 
I also think that that it is misleading to state that she is being taken to court. It is an appeal from her court action which is something entirely different. Its an appeal from a previous court case the she instigated. Is it not?
 
I think it is yet another attempt at distraction Fogged In. Instead of having the unwanted conversation about disease risk to wild stocks - industry pundits try to shift the conversation to what is "disease" - suggesting viruses are no big deal - verses the very real risk of amplification and release of disease vectors. Another similar attempt at distraction is the suggestion that since the ocean is "full of viruses" - having the introduction of a novel pathogen to naïve stocks is no big deal.

However, the Center for Disease Control and quarantine efforts would therefore be redundant if we adopted the same Laissez-faire attitude towards Ebola - for example. Luckily we have professionals making the rules there. Strange how in contrast - the industry gets to use diseased fish to stock their cages - and make their own rules about risks to wild stocks they are comfortable instituting - while we are left to wonder what is really happening in the ocean.
 
Starting at 11:55 in this video is Morton herself discussing her education. She seems very uncomfortable and doesn't seem to be very familiar with the school where she receive her smarts. She can't maintain the status of a registered professional biologist because of ethics issues. She basically can't stop slandering any of her peers that disagree with her. And you support this?
Trust me clint I aint much. I only did high school but I know the difference between virus and disease.
What are your qualifications clint?

This video is a classic pound the table. It's a sign of a weak argument when you attack the messenger and not the message.

"If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table."
 
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/sar-as/2009/2009_071-eng.htm

Science Advisory Report 2009/071
Pathways of Effects for Finfish and Shellfish Aquaculture

  1. The extent to which pathogens released from aquaculture sites are stressors requires knowledge of infection and disease in wild aquatic populations. In Canada and other jurisdictions, pathogen surveillance of wild animal populations is virtually non-existent and should be established. Without this knowledge the extent to which pathogens are stressors cannot be assessed. There is scientific evidence that pathogens present in wild populations are the source of initial infections in aquaculture animals and some evidence that aquaculture animals release pathogens in their environment. However, evidence of pathogen transfer from aquaculture animals and/or products to wild populations is very limited.
 
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/sar-as/2009/2009_071-eng.htm

Science Advisory Report 2009/071
Pathways of Effects for Finfish and Shellfish Aquaculture

  1. The extent to which pathogens released from aquaculture sites are stressors requires knowledge of infection and disease in wild aquatic populations. In Canada and other jurisdictions, pathogen surveillance of wild animal populations is virtually non-existent and should be established. Without this knowledge the extent to which pathogens are stressors cannot be assessed. There is scientific evidence that pathogens present in wild populations are the source of initial infections in aquaculture animals and some evidence that aquaculture animals release pathogens in their environment. However, evidence of pathogen transfer from aquaculture animals and/or products to wild populations is very limited.

If you go to 9:55 in this video there is talk about IHN and the research that has been ongoing since 1986. Pretty interesting stuff but certainly isn't the dooms day scenario presented here on this forum in relation to salmon farms. The good new is that when salmon farm had out breaks of IHN there was no increase found in wild stocks.

I agree that until recently there has not been much research but part of this lack of investigation has been due to a lack of technology. Our technology today is so far advanced that work in this area is well under way. I have a feeling your mind is made up tho.
 
Starting at 11:55 in this video is Morton herself discussing her education. She seems very uncomfortable and doesn't seem to be very familiar with the school where she receive her smarts. She can't maintain the status of a registered professional biologist because of ethics issues. She basically can't stop slandering any of her peers that disagree with her. And you support this?
Trust me clint I aint much. I only did high school but I know the difference between virus and disease.
What are your qualifications clint?

watching this gives me a greater respect for Alexandra Morton and a greater disrespect for dfo and their lawyers...
I encourage everyone to take the time to watch it to completion. thankfully there are people like Alexandra that have the interests of the environment, wild salmon, and the people that depend on them at heart.
It's quite apparent who's interests dfo are interested in protecting. doesn't seem to be any of the interests i've mentioned above...
glg nailed it.
thxs for that birdsnest.
 
Jeez, here we go again … show me data that documents salmon farming in BC has shown declivity in wild stocks, at the population level. You can’t and we all know it.
But anyone with a lick of common sense and the ability to Google can find reams of data about warming water, overfishing, ocean acidification, loss of freshwater habitat, urban encroachment, etc., that does.
Thank goodness fishery scientists, managers, regulators, all the way up to the Minister also know that there are far bigger problems for wild salmon than fish farms.
Ok, time to call me a PR shill, a paid FF spokesperson; heard it all before but have not received $.01 for my posts, lol! I’ve said it before … if I ever do see supportable data that condemns salmon farms here in BC, I will say so on this site and will damn them as some of you do.

Your turn agent.
 
Jeez, here we go again … show me data that documents salmon farming in BC has shown declivity in wild stocks, at the population level. You can’t and we all know it.
But anyone with a lick of common sense and the ability to Google can find reams of data about warming water, overfishing, ocean acidification, loss of freshwater habitat, urban encroachment, etc., that does.
Thank goodness fishery scientists, managers, regulators, all the way up to the Minister also know that there are far bigger problems for wild salmon than fish farms.
Ok, time to call me a PR shill, a paid FF spokesperson; heard it all before but have not received $.01 for my posts, lol! I’ve said it before … if I ever do see supportable data that condemns salmon farms here in BC, I will say so on this site and will damn them as some of you do.

Your turn agent.
If we all ran sewer pipes from our toilets to the ocean the way fish farms dispose of their waste, there wouldn't be anything edible alive in the ocean. Funny thing is in the early settlement years thats exactly what we did because we didn't know any better. It's just strange that the government would let the fish farmers get away with using the ocean as a sewer.
 
So you experts on "Salmon Farming does NO HARM......."

On another note.

Hows the Prawning now, at or even in the near proximity of these Waste Pens ......... ? These Ocean Based Farmed Salmon Pens are nothing but a Big $$ maker for the Producers and Government period. How narrow and short sited all the Greedy Blind folk are. Pathetic. Nothing but parasite breeding pens. The rich get richer.

To bad the Federal Gov and Prov Gov. wouldn't put the same money back into rebuilding the wild stocks and habitat rather then destroying the Future Wilds.

Farmed Salmon, has never been purchased nor offered to any guests in my home, never has, never will. Same goes for purchasing it from a menu ........ YUK !
 
Back
Top