Lawsuit Filed against DFO & Marine Harvest!!!

[ClayoquotKid]

Thanks for aptly and copiously demonstrating the denial mentality of your industry, SF and CK.

Don't forget to add: "We are the CULTURED fish professionals", CK - because you are definately NOT the wild fish professionals.

Don't confuse the term "professional" (getting paid to raise cultured Atlantic salmon) with "expert" or "specialist". Getting paid as a media shrill only means you are expert in the ways of lying.

Your lack of humility and corporate arrogance and hubris is overwhelming, CK. Can't wait for the judge to see this also.

the "Twelve Signs Arrogance Is Running Your Company" adapted from:
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/dec2010/ca20101220_008468.htm

1. You hire and develop great people but then fail to listen to their input if it is nonconformist thinking.

2. Your company [and shrills] rationalizes its mistakes instead of learning from them.

3. Your company focuses almost exclusively on financial success with little regard for legacy and social impact.

4. Your company [and shrills] lobbies against sound regulations because they may add complexity to the way you operate.

5. Your leaders [and shrills] pat themselves on the back when the company succeeds financially, even though success derived from market forces rather than actual performance.

6. Your leaders [and shrills] believe the company can't fail.

7. Your leaders [and shrills] dictate more than they listen.

8. The company underestimates its competition and minimizes the success competitors achieve.

9. Access to top leadership in the company requires wading through multiple layers of bureaucracy.

10. There is a focus on amassing the trappings of success: large, well-appointed offices, chauffeured cars, private jets, and the like.

11. Your company doesn't become a partner in a merger; it takes over, losing the value of the [wild fish] culture and learning the other organization might have provided.

12. Your company suffers from "Not Diseased Here Syndrome," believing it holds the monopoly on great ideas, so that innovations coming from the outside ("Not researched Here") are deemed to hold little value.

Taking Stock

If you answered "yes" to more than six of these signs, your company has a dangerously high arrogance index.

So - let's have a poll here. Who believes CK shows fish-farm institutionalized arrogance using the above criteria?

Some more "Copy Pasta" and ad hominem attacks Aqua?

Why can't you seem to stick to the presentation of evidence?

What is your counter to my position that as salmon farmers we need to know what is going on with our fish in order to make money?

Are you still trying to claim that we're hiding a disease which causes up to 90% mortality?

It speaks volumes that when you are pressed with hard logic you simply resort to name calling and a "poll" of your peers to try to demonize and shame me.

We're not on the schoolyard here, you don't need to act like a third grade bully trying to subdue a victim who has just pointed out that he failed a test.

I completely disagree with almost everything you say on here Aqua and I feel that salmon farmers have proven that they can effectively manage their stocks in a way that poses very little risk to wild fish.

I think history shows this and no amount of posturing and speculation from your side can change the fact that a total lack of evidence to date can only mean that as technology and understanding progresses the inevitable result will be, if anything, an incredibly small impact.

Then, it may just be up to the world to decide whether to support an industry that grows fish with minimal impact to wild stocks and managed risk, or continue to support one that exclusively relies on killing them for revenue.

I don't need to call anyone names on here Aqua, I'm just going to point out the big picture stuff for you guys to think about.

 

[agentaqua]

Don't confuse salmon farm PR releases with science, CK. The news releases from the BCSFA are not "evidence", CK - and it sure does illustrate to everyone on this forum how incapable you are in differentiating between the two.

So far CK - it appears that YOU are the one incapable of reading, digesting and integrating scientific journals.

So far, almost every response you have made has been unscientific, not supported and/or incapable of acknowledging any valid point that farm critics on this forum have made.

YOUR responses illustrate the arrogance and lack of honesty and transparency that is rife throughout your industry.

That is why you get acrimonious responses to your inane PR babble. I guess you are doing what you get paid for - but don't expect people to not call you on your BS or don't try to deflect it into you playing a "victim" from a bully. The industry you work for is a sociopathic bully, as are other corporate entities that impact other aspects of the environment.

The "big picture" you describe includes wild salmon and potential risks to these stocks CK - rather than being focused just your financial viability and shareholder returns.

 

[Dave]

Don't confuse salmon farm PR releases with science, CK. The news releases from the BCSFA are not "evidence", CK - and it sure does illustrate to everyone on this forum how incapable you are in differentiating between the two.

So far CK - it appears that YOU are the one incapable of reading, digesting and integrating scientific journals.

So far, almost every response you have made has been unscientific, not supported and/or incapable of acknowledging any valid point that farm critics on this forum have made.

YOUR responses illustrate the arrogance and lack of honesty and transparency that is rife throughout your industry.

That is why you get acrimonious responses to your inane PR babble. I guess you are doing what you get paid for - but don't expect people to not call you on your BS or don't try to deflect it into you playing a "victim" from a bully. The industry you work for is a sociopathic bully, as are other corporate entities that impact other aspects of the environment.

The "big picture" you describe includes wild salmon and potential risks to these stocks CK - rather than being focused just your financial viability and shareholder returns.

Yawn. Until you or your supporters can identify any stock of wild salmon in BC or Washington State that have incurred measurable losses to salmon farms you are simply farting in the wind.
It’s a fact that salmon farms and wild salmon have co-existed on this coast for over 30 years ...save your selves some angst and wait for the research by Riddell and Miller. Go fishing perhaps; go pound on a few of Charlie’s Columbia River bound chinooks.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Don't confuse salmon farm PR releases with science, CK. The news releases from the BCSFA are not "evidence", CK - and it sure does illustrate to everyone on this forum how incapable you are in differentiating between the two.

So far CK - it appears that YOU are the one incapable of reading, digesting and integrating scientific journals.

So far, almost every response you have made has been unscientific, not supported and/or incapable of acknowledging any valid point that farm critics on this forum have made.

YOUR responses illustrate the arrogance and lack of honesty and transparency that is rife throughout your industry.

That is why you get acrimonious responses to your inane PR babble. I guess you are doing what you get paid for - but don't expect people to not call you on your BS or don't try to deflect it into you playing a "victim" from a bully. The industry you work for is a sociopathic bully, as are other corporate entities that impact other aspects of the environment.

The "big picture" you describe includes wild salmon and potential risks to these stocks CK - rather than being focused just your financial viability and shareholder returns.

"The industry you work for is a sociopathic bully, as are other corporate entities that impact other aspects of the environment."

That is probably the best line I've seen from you yet.

Don't go and confuse the guys out there raising fish with the old paint factory on the river now...

I can read the scientific journals the same as everyone else out there, but unlike you I weigh those findings against others as well as empirical evidence before wholeheartedly accepting them as reality.

Your world seems to run on "Mights" and "Cans", but after more than 30 years we haven't seen any "Does" - that is my whole point.

You keep trying to use the whole "corporate entity" idea to get around the fact that there are thousands of educated and caring individuals working in aquaculture that care just as much about wild salmon as you do.

I guess it's pretty hard for you to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with your particular flavour of alarmism - so you have to create bigger boogey-men to reconcile that and other inconvenient realities.

 

[rockdog]

Staff meeting on the weekend? Seems as you boys (CK, BN, Sockeye)have changed your strategy here.

Quote - "You can't expect to be successful in business if you don't have a product to sell."
Not true in your industry, as our govt will by all your diseased dead fish, no questions asked.

You guys keep hanging around like a bad smell in the bathroom. You've made your point, no one cares, be gone already.

 

[Englishman]

"To suggest that PRV is “benign” is similarly inane, misleading, scientifically invalid AND not-to-mention downright stupid and condescending."

"PRV is a virus that can infect Atlantic and Pacific salmonids. Reoviruses get their name because many are respiratory and enteric orphans. They are called “orphans” because many are viruses without an associated disease. Other reoviruses have been found for decades in wild fish."
http://www.bcsalmonfacts.ca/forum/

"Despite some claims, it is incorrect to state that PRV is known to be the causal agent of Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI). If that were true, most or all fish with abundant PRV would also have HSMI. In Norway, fish with HSMI often have PRV, but many fish with PRV never develop HSMI. PRV is present in fish in BC, but no farm-raised or wild salmon have been diagnosed with HSMI. The records released during the Cohen Commission’s Inquiry into Fraser River sockeye also support this view.

There is some debate about the relation of PRV and HSMI in Norway, but even recent papers there state that detection of PRV alone does not establish an HSMI diagnosis (Garseth et al. Journal of Fisheries Research: 2012). If PRV was capable of causing harm to our fish or having the potential to cause harm to wild salmon we would take immediate steps to eliminate the virus."
http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/blog/2013/03/27/what-is-piscine-reovirus-prv/

CK you only ever quote Marine Harvest spin and damage control blurb. You never actually quote or analyse any of the scientific papers, or respond to the dozens of papers that Charlie and Aqua have quoted here. You don’t because you can’t refute the masses of damning evidence published against your industry from all over the world. NOT just here in Canada.

Despite your claims that salmon farm fish health monitoring is inadequate the fact remains that the health and safety of our fish is only second to the health and safety of our people.

You can't expect to be successful in business if you don't have a product to sell.

All of your opinions on this matter completely fail to recognize the importance and absolute necessity of knowing exactly what is going on with our stock - if they die it costs us money, therefore we invest significant amounts of time and resources into understanding the threats to our stocks.

CK you give yourself away completely here. All you babble on about is managing your stocks and diseases in your pens. You DO NOT know what is happening with the wild stocks because you do not monitor it and do not care. As Aqua repeatedly emphasises if a wild fish develops HMSI it dies or is taken by a predator.
It is completely preposterous logic for you to say “we care about our feed lots” and therefore everything right across the wild environment and in the ocean must be OK too. You are completely deluded into a some sort of benign all seeing omnipotence.

You complain ad nauseum about things that you feel are lacking, yet you are incapable of acknowledging that the people who grow fish for a living know more about their health and biology than anyone else on the planet.

Complete rubbish and again emphasises your puffed up self importance. There are hundreds of fisheries research scientists in universities and institutes all over the world that know far more about wild fish diseases and propagation than you folks who feed fish in pens (you do not “grow” them – you are feed lots not farms!!)

You seem incapable of seeing the situation in any other light, referring to alternative explanations as "stupid and condescending" - I find this to be an incredibly narrow-minded and simplistic view which only serves to explain your inability to accept the consistent and obvious flaws in your logic.

On the contrary, you inability to read and understand scientific papers and simply regurgitate industry masticated fluff is narrow minded and simplistic.

So, we are left with one side claiming massive amounts of conspiracy and collusion in an attempt to explain away their total lack of physical evidence to support their views, while the other side calmly attempts to educate and enlighten others about the reality of the situation.

Again, your claim there is a total lack of physical evidence is completely untrue. The scientific literature is loaded with evidence from all over the world (Charlie and Aqua have posted links to many of these] but it is all dismissed as “not proof of your case”, just like the tobacco industry did for decades. What you call educate and enlighten is self interested propaganda and spin control. It is not proof of anything and certainly not of the benign wonder of your industry!

You can express your opinions all you want about how you feel the aquaculture industry should be regulated, but you absolutely cannot claim that you, Morton, or any other opponent of aquaculture knows more about fish health and transmission of disease than those who have been raising them to be healthy, sellable product for the better part of half a century.
Again, we are the fish professionals and if you look at any website posting companies annual reports you will see all sorts of information provided to shareholders which outlines every economic impact applicable to their stocks - including fish losses from disease.

There you go again. You cannot get it through your head that raising fish in feed lots does NOT make you knowledgeable about anything that goes on in the greater environment or the thousands of interactions taking place out there. Your hubris and self aggrandisement is stunning!

 

[cuttlefish]

I posted an idea for testing the prevalence of PRV in wild BC salmon a few pages back and no one even commented on it. All that comes after is the usual back and forth about who knows or doesn't know what about anything or everything. Not very productive is it?

 

[Englishman]

Aqua seems to feel that simply because his expectations of transparency and oversight are not met that the industry is harming wild fish.

On the contrary CK, the salmon feed lot avoidance of transparency and oversight is hindering and blocking efforts to understand the impacts and risks. You are deliberately obfuscating because you do not want further detrimental impacts to come to light (there is already plenty of scientific evidence out there and you do not want any more)

The fact that all disease data is not public does not equate with the presence of a disease which could harm wild salmon.

If you squat on a public resource you are morally obligated to be transparent and to reveal all data. It is the OUR public resource not yours. We (the public or our agents) must monitor for all disease transference and propagation and determine what risks are acceptable. Not you!

In order for wild salmon to be at risk, farmed salmon would need to be dying in numerous and unexplained ways first and this is simply not the case.

Not true at all. And in any case feed lot fish DO die in numerous explained ways, but your industry does not know the full impacts this is having on the ocean environment, nor do you care.

It seems the only response available to many here when challenged for evidence to support their claims is to decry conspiracy and collusion by any and all level of regulation involved.

The further they are pressed the further the conspiracies go - and on and on they go.

There is a lack of care and oversight caused by the schizophrenic stance of the DFO which is charged with protecting wild fish and promoting salmon farms – a fact Cohen commented on. In addition there is all sorts of risk down playing and casting doubt on evidence by industry and politicians simply in a misguided and foolish attempt to protect jobs. Even when the jobs protected are far outnumbered by the jobs put at risk!

The incredible leaps of logic and willingness to grasp tightly on the weakest point of connection in order to maintain their elaborate theory is simply amazing to me.

The incredible ability of this industry to obfuscate, deny evidence, pretend certain biological facts do not exist (the fact that viruses mutate for example) and to ignore the damage wrought on the food chain because your “product” consumes more fish protein resources than it produces is simply amazing to me!

It takes a concerted effort to walk the path of "Farms are bad - therefore" and any rational person would have dozens of exit points when faced with situations where the only reason something makes sense is because you firmly believe the harm is occurring and are willing to ignore a number of alternatives that go against that assumption.

On the contrary all of those on here and people like Morton who are against fish feed lots did not come by their position by making assumptions. They arrived at their position by reading and understanding and correlating ALL the evidence. You CK, are like a fundamentalist who ignores the mountains OF evidence for evolution and insist the world is only 6000 years old!

It's kind of like watching a sci-fi movie where you suspend your disbelief in order to enjoy the story without saying, "That could never happen! This is BS!" - but the vast majority of people are not going to walk out of the theatre and claim your next door neighbour is an alien.

On the contrary CK, observing the feed lot industry is like watching a fantasy story. Only in the la la world of something for nothing economics does this industry make “sense”.

In reality, the fish meal used to make food for the salmon itself still comes mostly from the southern oceans, at huge consequences to the fisheries and communities there, and with massive inputs of energy (and CO2 equivalent) to process the fish into meal and pellets and ship it all the way to N. America. Sustainability, means making things works locally, with the resources at your disposal, on an on-going basis, not robbing Peter to pay Paul. Fish feed lots are nothing more than gigantic energy consuming, inefficient and environmentally dangerous conveyor belts for moving fish protein from the southern oceans and elsewhere to North America and Europe.
Only in the ecologically ignorant world of business, where distant or long term environmental effects are “off-the books” and not accounted for, and the laws of physics somehow suspended does this never-never world of development of environmentally destructive technologies appear to be sane. To anyone with any scientific understanding it is madness.

 

[agentaqua]

Englishman: thanks for the support. It gets real tiring constantly rebutting all the industry PR speaking notes.

Cuttle: Good idea. Don't wait for CFIA, though. They have refused to add PRV testing to their surveillance project; even if it is easy to do; even after specifically asked to do so by FN. they don't want to know.

CK: Where to begin?...How about you seem incapable of understanding it is YOUR JOB, not the public's to prove you are not having any effects.

In a fully-functioning democracy - we elected representatives to represent us and our society's views and needs. They make and pass appropriate laws, and the rest of the non-elected government enforces the laws. The government is supposed to be responsible to the constituents, and you the industry - responsible to the regulators. It's a cycle that leads back to the constituents - not the corporate headquarters.

As far as corruption and collusion goes - I have already given shortcomings of the system, and examples of real-life corruption (Schriber/Mulrooney affair, sponsorship scandal, etc.). It is the unfortunate history of real-life governments across the globe, including Canada. I'm not making this stuff up - you are either naive or brainwashed if you think it does not happen at the upper levels of your industry.

In the end all you have to fall back on is: "No, I don't believe it". That doesn't cut it CK.

In the end - you just have a job, CK. That's all it is. You can get another with big tobacco, big oil, or Hill and Knowleton. Maybe you should start submitting resumes already. The rest of us have to live with the consequences of your industry's impacts. It's not just a job

 

[Englishman]

Some more "Copy Pasta" and ad hominem attacks Aqua?

CK, I know two wrongs don’t make a right but nevertheless your industry shock troops make repeated attacks of this kind on Morton. You never counter the evidence as presented by her and her collaborators. Instead impugning her integrity and calling into question her motives are the order of the day. How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?

Why can't you seem to stick to the presentation of evidence?

You must be being deliberately obtuse. Charlie and Aqua have presented numerous links to scientific papers on here. These are just part of the vast body of evidence documenting the deleterious ecological and environmental impacts of farms, not just on fish, but on the entire ecosystem.

What is your counter to my position that as salmon farmers we need to know what is going on with our fish in order to make money?

A total non-sequitur. Knowing how to manage your feed lots with drugs and antibiotics does not make you an expert on wild fish ecology. Any more than a beef cattle farmer knows anything about the ecology, diseases and wild interactions of buffalo. Your obsession with making money gives you away. It is the justification for your arrogant assumption of superior knowledge and you motivation for renegade behaviour.

Are you still trying to claim that we're hiding a disease which causes up to 90% mortality?

You are hiding existence of viral vectors which pose significant risks of disease to wild salmon and have the potential for causing harm. Because of obfuscation and blocking by the industry and government, we don’t know for sure what the mortality is and under what circumstances.

It speaks volumes that when you are pressed with hard logic you simply resort to name calling and a "poll" of your peers to try to demonize and shame me.

We're not on the schoolyard here, you don't need to act like a third grade bully trying to subdue a victim who has just pointed out that he failed a test.

You should be ashamed CK….you really should!
The bully in this story is your industry. The attacks your industry fires off against Morton and other activists! The legal shenanigans your industry pulls to ensure we the public don’t know what is going on in OUR ocean!! The lobbying attempts to get the BC Government to make it illegal to report diseases in fish feed lots!

I completely disagree with almost everything you say on here Aqua and I feel that salmon farmers have proven that they can effectively manage their stocks in a way that poses very little risk to wild fish.

I and many other completely disagree with everything you say CK. You absolutely DO NOT KNOW that your stocks pose very little risk to wild fish because not enough research has been done. Cohen said as much and more!

I think history shows this and no amount of posturing and speculation from your side can change the fact that a total lack of evidence to date can only mean that as technology and understanding progresses the inevitable result will be, if anything, an incredibly small impact.

You are ignoring the huge amount of evidence out there in the scientific journals. Like a true fundamentalist you keep saying “there is no evidence” and like a true believer, you cannot be swayed from your true faith.

Then, it may just be up to the world to decide whether to support an industry that grows fish with minimal impact to wild stocks and managed risk, or continue to support one that exclusively relies on killing them for revenue.

It is a complete myth that salmon feed lots ”save” wild fish. Just because you say feed lots have minimal impact on wild fish does not make it so. All of the evidence points the other way. Meanwhile your industry continues with its great ecological experiment with sinister consequences still unfolding.

I don't need to call anyone names on here Aqua, I'm just going to point out the big picture stuff for you guys to think about.

The big picture? I think you are joking. Anyone who truly looks at the real big picture across the whole world understand the terrible impact this industry has. Those impacts affect wild fish, marine habitats, marine mammals, crustaceans, forage fish in distant oceans and has cultural and social impacts. And those impacts will only get worse as sea lice develop resistance, viruses mutate, and different ecosystems are stripped of their pelagic forage fish.

 

[Englishman]

"The industry you work for is a sociopathic bully, as are other corporate entities that impact other aspects of the environment."

That is probably the best line I've seen from you yet.

What CK? A well read and informed person like yourself has never heard of this characteristic of big corporations?
Well to educate you here are a couple of articles on this well known phenomenon
http://politicalloudmouth.com/why-publicly-traded-corporations-behave-like-sociopaths/
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/258207?uid=3739400&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21102284851267

Don't go and confuse the guys out there growing fish with the old paint factory on the river now...

No cK you’re confusing the regular guys out there feeding (not growing!) those fish and the big foreign corporations, such as you represent. The corporations who own the feed lots have no morals and consequently no concern for the harm they do to the environment either now or in the future, because there sole and only legal and contractual obligation is to make money for their shareholders – preferably now not later – delays are costly so your organisations fight every regulation, every oversight, every caution and minimise every perceived risk.

I can read the scientific journals the same as everyone else out there, but unlike you I weigh those findings against others as well as empirical evidence before wholeheartedly accepting them as reality.

No you don’t CK. You belittled and made fun of the idea of viral mutations in an earlier post. You have no knowledge of science or biology and absolutely no understanding of the thousands of complex interactions that take place in a wild ecology.

Your world seems to run on "Mights" and "Cans", but after more than 30 years we haven't seen any "Does" - that is my whole point.

Casting doubt and uncertainty is what you do best CK. Just like the notorious Hill and Knowlton, this is your only skill. Hundreds of papers on the global deleterious effect of salmon feed lots have been published. Hundreds because the impacts are very diverse and widespread. And there will be more very soon……just watch.

You keep trying to use the whole "corporate entity" idea to get around the fact that there are thousands of educated and caring individuals working in aquaculture that care just as much about wild salmon as you do.

Thousands CK? I don’t think the employment figures support that wild exaggeration. And of those only a small portion will be anglers or naturalists that have any interest or stake in the wild ecology or environment.

I guess it's pretty hard for you to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with your particular flavour of alarmism - so you have to create bigger boogey-men to reconcile that and other inconvenient realities.

On the contrary CK it is very hard for you to accept that all those published scientists and activists, from Morton to Suzuki, from Charlie to Aqua, and all the others on here who want to get the salmon feed lots out of the water, agree that the evidence is overwhelming that there are huge problems and risks. These are the inconvenient facts that you try and deny by demonising opponents and calling into question their knowledge , integrity and motives.

 

[sockeyefry2]

OMG, you guys really believe all the anti farm BS rhetoric and pseudo science. Talk about your flock of sheeple.

Charlie,

The industry on the east coast uses atlantic salmon of the Saint John River Strain exclusively. It was what was available from DFO in the 80's when it all started and they grow well under East coast conditions. So with no imports of Norwegian eggs how do you explain ISA on the east coast of Canada? Maybe it was ALWAYS THERE, and not an import.

Cuttle,
That's a great idea, however it might not prove anything. If you find it in the Skeena, then the Aqua's et al will say its because they rubbed up against some farmed fish somewhere. If you don't find it in Skeena fish then it still doesn't prove that the virus was brought here by Farming activities.

English,

You cannot isolate Fish farming and say it has far reaching impacts that are not understood and therefore we should shut it down. If you are going to take this stand better be prepared to lose a lot of human activities in and around the waters inhabited by wild salmon that may have far reaching impacts which are not fully understood.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Political upheaval likely coming to B.C.
Canada: An election in British Columbia will likely change the political landscape for the worse for the province’s salmon farmers


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Odd Grydeland

The polling stations have just closed, and if public opinion polls turn out to be correct, a new government will soon be in place in Victoria, headed by the New Democratic Party. While the party has been largely silent during the election campaign on its position on salmon farming, the information closest to a positional statement by the NDP prior to the election was perhaps provided by the sitting member of the provincial government- Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing Northern Vancouver Island. In a statement to a local newspaper, NDP’s Claire Trevena largely skirted the issue by referring to the federal jurisdiction, as well as a report by a Provincial judge (Justice Bruce Cohen) who was hired to look into an unusually poor return of sockeye salmon in 2009 to the Fraser River;

“The B.C. NDP has explicitly stated that it is strongly in favour of implementing the recommendations of the Cohen Commission Report and is committed to working to achieve their implementation. This report, exploring the decline of sockeye in the Fraser River, was wide-ranging and comprehensive in its recommendations.

It must be remembered that, as a consequence of a legal challenge brought in 2009, the BC Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction for open-net aquaculture. This ruling severely limits the province’s ability to regulate in this area. We are disappointed the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not moved promptly to implement Justice Cohen’s recommendations. Last May, my party stated that we are firmly committed to working with and, if necessary, pressuring DFO to act if we form government.

The recommendations include: using the precautionary principle to re-evaluate risk and mitigation measures for salmon farms in the Discovery Islands including closing farms that pose a serious risk to migrating salmon, limiting salmon farm production and licenses, and maintaining the existing moratorium on new fish farm licenses on the North Coast. We are watching with interest the development of land-based, closed containment fish farm projects in the North Island, projects that I support.

An area where the province does have jurisdiction is renewing leases for the siting of fish farms. Unfortunately, the BC Liberals have not developed neither the capacity nor clear policy directives to handle this responsibility. The BCNDP will develop them if we form government”.

Ironically, when the Cohen Commission was in the middle of its hearings, the biggest run of sockeye salmon in a hundred years swam up the same Fraser River.

Another statement regarding salmon aquaculture provided by a NDP MLA came from Mr. John Horgan, a representative from the Victoria region on the southern end of Vancouver Island, where he was quoted by a journalist from BC Local News; “He (Horgan) denied that he is advocating the shutdown of existing fish farms. He said closed-containment technology using bags suspended in the ocean is developing, and existing leases for net-pen salmon farms will eventually expire. "Closed containment is the only way I can see the aquaculture industry surviving in the long term," he said. This is surprising at it was Horgan that negotiated most of the details of the current regulatory system for salmon farms in British Columbia- he should know that this would eliminate most if not all of the 6,000 some jobs currently depending on this vital industry.

 

[cuttlefish]

OMG, you guys really believe all the anti farm BS rhetoric and pseudo science. Talk about your flock of sheeple.


Cuttle,
That's a great idea, however it might not prove anything. If you find it in the Skeena, then the Aqua's et al will say its because they rubbed up against some farmed fish somewhere. If you don't find it in Skeena fish then it still doesn't prove that the virus was brought here by Farming activities.

So, sockeyefry 2, it looks like in your opinion, nothing will ever prove anything. Your statement above just reinforces my last post that you have nothing productive to add to this conversation. I will however, not stoop to the level of responding to you flaming me as a member of the flock of sheeple.

 

[agentaqua]

We're all a "flock of sheepie" because we DON't swallow the industry PR talking notes generated by the DFO Communications Department, BCFSA, Hill and Knowleton and Grydeland Communications?

Interesting perspective SF.

 

[Charlie]

OMG, you guys really believe all the anti farm BS rhetoric and pseudo science. Talk about your flock of sheeple.

Charlie,

The industry on the east coast uses atlantic salmon of the Saint John River Strain exclusively. It was what was available from DFO in the 80's when it all started and they grow well under East coast conditions. So with no imports of Norwegian eggs how do you explain ISA on the east coast of Canada? Maybe it was ALWAYS THERE, and not an import.

SF, believe you might lose some credibility, if YOU start using that feedlot industry BS rhetoric and pseudo science?

I believe what YOU meant to say, is now that the "Yanks" got rid of those Norwegians, there will be "NO MORE" European-strain Atlantic salmon importing THEIR DISEASES, as Cook Aquaculture only uses North American-strained salmon?

Yes... U.S. laws certainly is the reason the Norwegians moved out of the U.S.!


Last updated: Friday, April 2, 2004
Atlantic Salmon has new owner Canadian firm buys fish plant

"Atlantic Salmon has been troubled in the past two years by litigation and fish disease. It was one of two Maine aquaculture companies that was found in violation of the Clean Water Act in 2002 by a U.S. District Court judge. It was also sued by environmental groups for using a stock that was bred from European-strain salmon . The European-strain fish, developed over more than a decade, grows to market size more quickly than North American salmon. It had allowed Atlantic Salmon to better compete with salmon grown in Norway, Scotland and Chile.

"Cooke Aquaculture works with "100 percent North American-strained salmon, ... so that will neutralize that whole issue," Butler said Thursday.
http://www.fobhb.org/library/AtlanticSalmonHas.pdf

MAINE AQUACULTURE, ATLANTIC SALMON, AND INERTIA: WHAT IS THE FUTURE FOR MAINE’S NET
PEN SALMON INDUSTRY?

I. Atlantic Salmon, Stolt Sea Farm, and the Historic Lack of Federal Regulation of Marine Aquaculture
On June 17, 2002, the U.S. District Court of Maine entered orders holding that two salmon net pen facilities were point sources and were required to obtain NPDES permits under the CWA.30 This decision was preceded by more than a decade of uncertainty and agency inaction.31

In 1987, Atlantic Salmon of Maine (Atlantic) and Stolt Sea Farm (Stolt) began their salmon net pen facilities off the coast of Maine.32 Both operations claim that at that point, EPA did not require them to have permits for their activities.33 In a July 19, 1989 letter from EPA Region One to the Army Corps of Engineers, however, William Lawless, Director of Water Management Division, stated that “‘pon re-evaluating the regulations, we have determined that some of these concentrated aquatic animal production facilities may require a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.’”34 EPA reiterated this position in an August 1989 response to a letter of intent to sue EPA for not requiring the salmon farming facilities to have NPDES permits.35

It was not until over a year later, in October 1990, that EPA notified Atlantic and Stolt that they were required to have NPDES permits.36 Both companies responded relatively quickly and submitted NPDES permit applications, but EPA never replied or issued permits.37 In the intervening years, both Atlantic and Stolt contacted federal and state bodies for assurances that their business operations could continue without NPDES permits, but both were rebuffed.38 In the fall of 2000, the United States Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) sued to enjoin production at Atlantic, Stolt, and a third facility for violations of the Clean Water Act—specifically, for discharges from a point source without a NPDES permit.39

The number of operations developed by Atlantic and Stolt since 1987 is significant: Atlantic owns and operates five salmon net pen facilities in Maine’s Machias Bay, two in Pleasant Bay, and it owns others; Stolt owns five net pen facilities in Cobscook Bay, two of which operate under a different name.40 To give some idea of the scale of production involved, Atlantic states that “[o]n any given day, there are 2.3 million salmon in ASM [Atlantic Salmon of Maine]’s pens.”41 Each of Stolt’s net pen facilities can have up to twenty-eight pens, with 5000 to 16,000 salmon in each, allowing for a stock potentially equal to Atlantic’s.42
https://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bcealr/31_3/08_TXT.htm

 

[Charlie]

Oh BTW… forgot to mention! Do ”YOU” know what Pan Fish; Marine Harvest; Geveran Trading; and 74% ownership of Fjord Seafood LLC (in 2005) “ALL” have in common” ?

 

[Dave]

Oh BTW… forgot to mention! Do ”YOU” know what Pan Fish; Marine Harvest; Geveran Trading; and 74% ownership of Fjord Seafood LLC (in 2005) “ALL” have in common” ?

Well Charlie, I’ve obviously bit and the suspense is too much ... please tell us.
And then perhaps, why the CAPITAL letters, bold font, and apostrophes? They’re not necessary as your posts are mostly informative and well cited but imo, unprofessional and ugly to read.

 

[agentaqua]

Well Charlie...your posts...unprofessional and ugly to read.

You mean there is no DFO figurehead? Think I know where you work...

 

[Dave]

You mean there is no DFO figurehead? Think I know where you work...

Retired nearly 6 years.