Aquaculture; improving????

[Birdsnest]

What part of Kristi's statement do you believe to be untrue, BN? Have any science to back that assertion up?

The research in question on PRV causing jaundice is farmed chinook salmon from 2012 has not been published or peer reviewed. Yet Miller continues to make statements on the paper which are only hers and disregards the disagreements from participants and fellow researchers which is required. If I am incorrect one could simply post the published peer reviewed paper but it simply doesn't exist.

 

[wildmanyeah]

The research in question on PRV causing jaundice is farmed chinook salmon from 2012 has not been published or peer reviewed. Yet Miller continues to make statements on the paper which are only hers and disregards the disagreements participants and fellow researchers. If I am incorrect one could simple post the published peer reviewed paper but it simply doesn't exist.

yeah but its been replicated since by PSF SSHI team

https://www.psf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Findings-from-the-Strategic-Salmon-Health-Initiative-SSHI-related-to-Piscine-orthoreovirus-in-British-Columbia-FINAL_0.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2018-0008

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe2592

 

[agentaqua]

If you read the article, BN - it was the industry that didn't want the embarrassing results to be published - NOT Kristi. It's called a conflict of interest and worse (collusion/corruption) that DFO allows a veto by the industry on publicly funded data that impacts wild stocks. Kinda been the problem about this industry from the get-go. It's always been a planned set-up on the witholding of inconvenient or embarrasing data.

AND

Justice Cohen also noticed the all-too-obvious conflicts of interest.

AND

the much-touted Precautionary Approach that DFO is compelled to adhere to does not necessarily demand peer-review on all data but instead a balance of evidence approach.

AND

It's ALWAYS industry's responsibility to prove they are NOT having an impact (except of course in this one specific case for the industry that is actually in the water).

 

[wildmanyeah]

I think its a valid argument that when it comes to this the industry dug their own grave on this one and Without a doubt the government enabled them to do it because let's be honest PRV something that was already endemic at this point for 25 years would of been tuffs to deal with.

However instead of coming up with mitigation strategies' over the last 10 years both sides ignored it.

Some mitigation strategies could of been testing to make sure no smolts were transferred into pens with it and pens were monitored for levels. If levels reached a contagious threshold or what have you that the stock would be harvested or destroyed. Also could these pens be moved to areas where there would be less interactions ect ect ect.

and yea there would of been the same calls to get them out of the water but the industry could of attest showed some due diligence. Instead studies could of been directed at solutions rather then spending the next 10 years proving the same thing.

 

[wildmanyeah]

It's ALWAYS industry's responsibility to prove they are NOT having an impact (except of course in this one specific case for the industry that is actually in the water).

I think we both know industry is permitted to have an impact other wise we still would not be using log booms as a means of transportation for cut lumber since their destructive nature to the ecosystem and salmon has been well documented since the 1970s

 

[gone fishin]

From Stan Proboszcz
“I was in a frustrating meeting with DFO Aquaculture Management staff a few weeks ago, talking about fish farm parasites and how they harm wild juvenile salmon. From what I could see, there were no DFO staff in the meeting that had protecting wild salmon as part of their job duties. It seemed all they cared about was facilitating the salmon farming industry’s wants and needs.”

 

[agentaqua]

pointing fingers at other industries does NOT invalidate any individual proponents responsibilities, WMY. We have been thru this many times on this thread and others. No get otta jail free card unless one can pay off the political parties, apparently.

Just so we are clear - here are some of the relevant sections from the Fisheries Act (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-14/FullText.html):

Death of fish

• 34.4 (1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity, other than fishing, that results in the death of fish.
• Marginal note:Exception
  (2) A person may carry on a work, undertaking or activity without contravening subsection (1) if
  • (a) the work, undertaking or activity is a prescribed work, undertaking or activity or belongs to a prescribed class of works, undertakings or activities, as the case may be, or is carried on in or around prescribed Canadian fisheries waters, and the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the prescribed conditions;
  • (b) the carrying on of the work, undertaking or activity is authorized by the Minister and the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions established by the Minister;
  • (c) the carrying on of the work, undertaking or activity is authorized by a prescribed person or prescribed entity and the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions set out in the authorization;
  • (d) the death results from the doing of anything that is authorized, permitted or required under this Act;
  • (e) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the regulations;
  • (f) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with a permit issued under subsection 35.1(3), in the case of a work, undertaking or activity that is part of a designated project and that is designated by the Minister under subsection 35.1(2); or
  • (g) the work, undertaking or activity is a prescribed work, undertaking or activity under paragraph 35.2(10)(a) or belongs to a prescribed class of works, undertakings or activities under that paragraph, as the case may be, and carried on in an ecologically significant area in accordance with an authorization issued under subsection 35.2(7).

Harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat

• 35 (1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
• Marginal note:Exception
  (2) A person may carry on a work, undertaking or activity without contravening subsection (1) if
  • (a) the work, undertaking or activity is a prescribed work, undertaking or activity or belongs to a prescribed class of works, undertakings or activities, as the case may be, or is carried on in or around prescribed Canadian fisheries waters, and the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the prescribed conditions;
  • (b) the carrying on of the work, undertaking or activity is authorized by the Minister and the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions established by the Minister;
  • (c) the carrying on of the work, undertaking or activity is authorized by a prescribed person or prescribed entity and the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions set out in the authorization;
  • (d) the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction results from the doing of anything that is authorized, permitted or required under this Act;
  • (e) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the regulations;
  • (f) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with a permit issued under subsection 35.1(3), in the case of a work, undertaking or activity that is part of a designated project and that is designated by the Minister under subsection 35.1(2); or
  • (g) the work, undertaking or activity is a prescribed work, undertaking or activity under paragraph 35.2(10)(a) or belongs to a prescribed class of works, undertakings or activities under that paragraph, as the case may be, and is carried on in an ecologically significant area in accordance with an authorization issued under subsection 35.2(7).

Minister may require plans and specifications

• 37 (1) If a person carries on or proposes to carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results or is likely to result in the death of fish, in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat or in the deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where that deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of that deleterious substance may enter any such waters, the person shall, on the request of the Minister — or without request in the manner and circumstances prescribed by regulations made under paragraph (3)(a) — provide him or her with any documents — plans, specifications, studies, procedures, schedules, analyses, samples, evaluations — and any other information relating to the work, undertaking or activity, or to the water, place, fish or fish habitat that is or is likely to be affected by the work, undertaking or activity, that will enable the Minister to determine
  • (a) whether the work, undertaking or activity results or is likely to result in the death of fish that constitutes or would constitute an offence under subsection 40(1) and what measures, if any, would prevent that death or mitigate the extent of death;
  • (a.1) whether the work, undertaking or activity results or is likely to result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat that constitutes or would constitute an offence under subsection 40(1) and what measures, if any, would prevent that result or mitigate its effects; or
  • (b) whether there is or is likely to be a deposit of a deleterious substance by reason of the work, undertaking or activity that constitutes or would constitute an offence under subsection 40(2) and what measures, if any, would prevent that deposit or mitigate its effects.

Marginal note:False statements

• 63 (1) No person shall make a false or misleading statement, whether orally or in writing, to an inspector, a fishery officer, a fishery guardian, any authority designated by a fishery officer or a fishery guardian or any authority prescribed under paragraph 38(9)(a) or (b) who is carrying out duties or functions under this Act.
• Marginal note:False statements in licence application
  (2) No person shall make a false or misleading statement, whether orally or in writing, in an application for a lease or licence under this Act.
• Marginal note:False records
  (3) No person shall produce for examination or copying by an inspector, a fishery officer or a fishery guardian or any authority designated by a fishery officer or a fishery guardian any records, books of account or other documents that contain false or misleading information.

 

[agentaqua]

 

[gone fishin]

Not new news but
More bad pr for Fish Farms

"Canada ignored warnings of virus infecting farmed and wild salmon"
"A study last year from the University of British Columbia confirmed her work, concluding that the closer wild Chinook are to fish farms, the higher the likelihood they’ll be infected by the Piscine orthoreovirus."
Canada ignored warnings of virus infecting farmed and wild salmon | Canada | The Guardian

 

[Whole in the Water]

Not new news but
More dad pr for Fish Farms

"Canada ignored warnings of virus infecting farmed and wild salmon"
"A study last year from the University of British Columbia confirmed her work, concluding that the closer wild Chinook are to fish farms, the higher the likelihood they’ll be infected by the Piscine orthoreovirus."
Canada ignored warnings of virus infecting farmed and wild salmon | Canada | The Guardian

Again the truth is coming out against this corrupt and unsustainable industry and the biased DFO management and corrupt politicians that support it. All the more reason why this polluting, marine environment harming industry has to be moved onto land where its harmful effects can be better managed. Cannot come soon enough!!!

 

[terrin]

Not new news but
More bad pr for Fish Farms

"Canada ignored warnings of virus infecting farmed and wild salmon"
"A study last year from the University of British Columbia confirmed her work, concluding that the closer wild Chinook are to fish farms, the higher the likelihood they’ll be infected by the Piscine orthoreovirus."
Canada ignored warnings of virus infecting farmed and wild salmon | Canada | The Guardian

Well to all theOpen Net Fish Farm advocates claiming no disease transfer to Wild Salmon what say you now? The DFO has been hiding what is so painfully obvious for over a decade. Can we finally agree these thing belong on dry land.

 

[agentaqua]

Who can Minister Murray trust? | National Newswatch

National Newswatch: Canada's most comprehensive site for political news and views. Make it a daily habit.

www.nationalnewswatch.com

 

[agentaqua]

 

[gone fishin]

Have you heard? Salmon lice are spreading from infected open-net pen fish farms to the offices of local politicians. Last Tuesday, MP Patrick Weiler’s office in Horseshoe Bay was plastered with giant paper lice. The next day, Premier John Horgan’s office in Langford was hit. This morning, South Burnaby MP, Jagmeet Singh’s office was also infested.

 

[SpringFever552]

Federal Court rejects ministerial bid to shut down BC salmon farms

seawestnews.com

 

[OldBlackDog]

Road to Recovery: Self determination a priority for North Island First Nations Aquaculture Coalition

On this week’s segment of Road to Recovery with Douglas Magazine, CHEK’s Hannah Lepine chats with Cyrus Singh, the CEO of K'awat'si Economic Development.

www.cheknews.ca

The Gwa’sala-‘Nakwaxda’xw Nations (GNN) have called for an Aquaculture Zone to be established in their traditional territory, allowing them to administer licensing salmon and shellfish farms, as well as ensuring that wild stocks are not overfished.

 

[SpringFever552]

Road to Recovery: Self determination a priority for North Island First Nations Aquaculture Coalition

On this week’s segment of Road to Recovery with Douglas Magazine, CHEK’s Hannah Lepine chats with Cyrus Singh, the CEO of K'awat'si Economic Development.

www.cheknews.ca

The Gwa’sala-‘Nakwaxda’xw Nations (GNN) have called for an Aquaculture Zone to be established in their traditional territory, allowing them to administer licensing salmon and shellfish farms, as well as ensuring that wild stocks are not overfished.

How many "first nations sportfishing licenses for colonials" will we need after all this undrip is done!?

 

[John Ingram]

Federal court overturns order to shut down salmon farms

Court rules former fisheries minister's decision lacked procedural fairness.

www.timescolonist.com

 

[gone fishin]

Federal court overturns order to shut down salmon farms

Court rules former fisheries minister's decision lacked procedural fairness.

www.timescolonist.com

Foreign owned fish farms desperate attempt to protect their profits at the expense of our wild salmon!
Will it stick and we will live with Fish Farms in our open waters forever??
I THINK NOT