Lawsuit Filed against DFO & Marine Harvest!!!

What happened to the "Wild Salmon" vote?


Political surprise hits British Columbia
Canada: Only the staunchest optimists and supporters of the business- friendly B.C. Liberal Party would have thought that the party could win a fourth, consecutive mandate


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Odd Grydeland

Every one of the public opinion polls taken during the last two months prior to Tuesday’s provincial election predicted that the previous government would fall in favour of a significant victory for the B.C. New Democratic Party (NDP). This likely scenario did not sit well with the salmon farmers in the region, as the NDP on more than one occasion had stated its support for a mandatory, industry-wide transition to some form of yet-to-be-developed “closed containment” fish farming system. So it was with great relief that the aquaculture industry saw the Liberal party take 50 of the 85 seats in the provincial legislature, compared with only 33 for the NDP. And while the pollster community is scratching its collective head trying to figure out what went on, people in the resource-based industries are starting to figure out how to move forward with the expansion of their businesses in order to create more wealth for people in the province, and for the government to have additional revenue to spend on health care and education.

While the B.C. Liberal Party has been largely silent on the issue of salmon farming since a B.C. court decided that ocean-based aquaculture should be regulated by the federal government, one Liberal Party candidate (Nick Facey representing Vancouver Island North) expressed his position on salmon farming this way:

“Salmon aquaculture is a very important sector in British Columbia and particularly in the North Island area. It employs thousands of people, creates opportunities for First Nations communities, and creates an environment for a strong network of secondary supply businesses that keep our economy strong, growing and stable. That said, aquaculture can only be supported knowing that it is being done responsibly. I believe that the extensive work done by the industry and the stringent regulations developed by the federal and provincial governments meet that standard.

The BC Liberal government has already voiced its support of the Cohen Commission recommendations that would see a review of siting regulations, additional research in the Discovery Islands and a moratorium on new sites in that area; and I stand by that commitment. With good management and strong oversight, I believe aquaculture will continue to be an important part of the North Island's future.

Last week I was able to visit the Marine Harvest Canada processing plant in Port Hardy and it is clear how important a facility of that size is for the community. I've also been able to tour salmon farms and hatcheries myself and meet the people who proudly take care of their fish. It represents many jobs - good jobs - so ensuring that this sector is sustainable is important to our riding”.
 
What happened to the "Wild Salmon" vote?


Political surprise hits British Columbia
Canada: Only the staunchest optimists and supporters of the business- friendly B.C. Liberal Party would have thought that the party could win a fourth, consecutive mandate


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Odd Grydeland

Every one of the public opinion polls taken during the last two months prior to Tuesday’s provincial election predicted that the previous government would fall in favour of a significant victory for the B.C. New Democratic Party (NDP). This likely scenario did not sit well with the salmon farmers in the region, as the NDP on more than one occasion had stated its support for a mandatory, industry-wide transition to some form of yet-to-be-developed “closed containment” fish farming system. So it was with great relief that the aquaculture industry saw the Liberal party take 50 of the 85 seats in the provincial legislature, compared with only 33 for the NDP. And while the pollster community is scratching its collective head trying to figure out what went on, people in the resource-based industries are starting to figure out how to move forward with the expansion of their businesses in order to create more wealth for people in the province, and for the government to have additional revenue to spend on health care and education.

While the B.C. Liberal Party has been largely silent on the issue of salmon farming since a B.C. court decided that ocean-based aquaculture should be regulated by the federal government, one Liberal Party candidate (Nick Facey representing Vancouver Island North) expressed his position on salmon farming this way:

“Salmon aquaculture is a very important sector in British Columbia and particularly in the North Island area. It employs thousands of people, creates opportunities for First Nations communities, and creates an environment for a strong network of secondary supply businesses that keep our economy strong, growing and stable. That said, aquaculture can only be supported knowing that it is being done responsibly. I believe that the extensive work done by the industry and the stringent regulations developed by the federal and provincial governments meet that standard.

The BC Liberal government has already voiced its support of the Cohen Commission recommendations that would see a review of siting regulations, additional research in the Discovery Islands and a moratorium on new sites in that area; and I stand by that commitment. With good management and strong oversight, I believe aquaculture will continue to be an important part of the North Island's future.

Last week I was able to visit the Marine Harvest Canada processing plant in Port Hardy and it is clear how important a facility of that size is for the community. I've also been able to tour salmon farms and hatcheries myself and meet the people who proudly take care of their fish. It represents many jobs - good jobs - so ensuring that this sector is sustainable is important to our riding”.

Facey lost. Grydeland must have known that but fails to mention it. That's good journalism?
 
Reading that garbage made me sick! Employs thousands?? Bull *****. Couple hundred minimum wage jobs maybe. There would be lots more jobs and money, if they invested half the money and time into wild fish as they do farmed crap.
We must keep pressing and educating the businesses that sell this garbage, and the people that buy it.
 
Rockdog,

I cannot believe a person can be in such denial. Yes it is thousands, and no they don't get minimum wage. The important thing to remember about the employment is it is in rural areas, and the jobs are full time year round.

Your "Lots more jobs and money" in wild fish are I assume referring to the commercial fishery and Tourism. Both offer seasonal jobs, and are very dependent on the EI system to cover their workers wages in the off season, something the canadian tax payer cannot afford.
 
...the commercial fishery and Tourism. Both offer seasonal jobs, and are very dependent on the EI system to cover their workers wages in the off season, something the canadian tax payer cannot afford.
BUT, SF - you neglect to mention the fact that the "taxpayer" pays the salaries of the officials working on regulating the fish farm industry - a cost in the millions every year, taxpayers pay fish farms for their fish directly when they diseased and have to be destroyed, not even to mention the environmental costs which are externalized.
 
Ah but Aqua you fail to mention that CFIA pays all land farmers for livestock that has to be destroyed by their direction, and have for years either as CFIA or Ag. Canada. In addition, Salmon farmers in the past have been forced to destroy fish by DFO without a cent of compnesation while their Agri counterparts enjoyed compensation from the same federal Gov.

Also regulations are made by the Gov for the people of Canada, and it is therefore their obligation to see that they are enforced.

EI is insurance against unexpected job loss, it is not a parking lot for employees in the off season. Major difference in cost to the taxpayeras well, many Billions on EI vs a few millions for Salmon Farm regulation.
 
Ah but Aqua you fail to mention that CFIA pays all land farmers for livestock that has to be destroyed by their direction, and have for years either as CFIA or Ag. Canada. In addition, Salmon farmers in the past have been forced to destroy fish by DFO without a cent of compnesation while their Agri counterparts enjoyed compensation from the same federal Gov.

Also regulations are made by the Gov for the people of Canada, and it is therefore their obligation to see that they are enforced.

EI is insurance against unexpected job loss, it is not a parking lot for employees in the off season. Major difference in cost to the taxpayeras well, many Billions on EI vs a few millions for Salmon Farm regulation.
IF you are now bringing-in and comparing costs of aquaculture to agriculture- AND using the catch-all phrase of "Billions" for Ei - then you have to look at return to Canada from all natural resources and their industries to the GDP and what it costs Canada to manage those resources. You have opened the discussion up to the whole economy rather than focusing it only on aquaculture.
 
IF you are now bringing-in and comparing costs of aquaculture to agriculture- AND using the catch-all phrase of "Billions" for Ei - then you have to look at return to Canada from all natural resources and their industries to the GDP and what it costs Canada to manage those resources. You have opened the discussion up to the whole economy rather than focusing it only on aquaculture.

Now this is a very interesting point - What does it cost to manage vs. benefits.

One has to invest a huge amount of money into salmon aquaculture in order for it to be profitable and the spin-off industries are mostly much higher than minimal wage - net lofts, barge/crane/tug operators, harvest vessels, divers, truck drivers, warehouses/distributors, etc.

Sportfishing can claim a large impact by counting every tackle shop employee and hotel worker - aquaculture can do the same with far better paying jobs in most cases.

Sure, there might be more guides and charter outfits out there, but as I know first hand from working in the industry - the money isn't all that great and it is seasonal.

Most of the staff I see start at about 15 bucks an hour and can easily double that for management and administration - with benefits - year round.

In the rare case of culls most often it is insurance companies which foot the bill, CFIA rarely makes payouts, which are commonplace in other food production areas.

If the cost of managing of the industry is a concern - salmon farms are only a small component across the country and produce a very high value product.

My gut tells me this would be a hard argument to win, although without more numbers to back up my thoughts I couldn't really say right now.

What about the millions and millions that are pumped into the commercial and FN fisheries?

There is lots in here: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports-eng.htm#qfr
 
Agwnt,

Nice deflection. I'm not openign any kind of a broad economic discussion.

You made the comment regarding all the $$$ paid to salmon farmers to destroy stocks. I was merely adding that this occurs also in terrestrial agriculture and has for years.

You tried to make it sound like salmon farmers enjoy some perk from the tax payers when in actuality that is not the case.
 
Deflection? No, I don't think so, SF. I'm connecting your comments to the aoppropriate scale.

IF you had focused your EI comments on sports- and commercial-fishing, and only discussed aquaculture instead of the larger agriculture context - then the discussion would be on jobs and costs between the aquaculture verses the fishing sectors. YOU, however - expanded the discussion - which we have yet to compare total $. Prob. some digging to come-up with those #s.

As far as your EI comments go - ALL Canadians (exception self-employed) pay into EI and can receive benefits - INCLUDING fish farm employees.

AND fish farmers DO get perks from taxpayers, including free sewerage services and aeration when using open net-pens - which is why it costs more to go to closed containment.

OTHER perks also incude the millions spent on monitoring, enforcement, AND research.

AND yes, taxpayers have paid $MILLIONS out - specifically for diseased farm stock over the years - particularly in NB. OVER $100 million...

I guess if you have a zoonotic pass through your farmed stock - it would be more profitable to have your divers cut holes in the nets and claim sea lions caused the escape and then get the insurance money if they were diseased, since USUALLY you couldn't take them to market for biosecurity reasons - UNLESS of course the CFIA went along with it and left the infected fish in the water for 6 months until the fish were ready for market DESPITE the risks to wild stocks.

I guess having a 20% deductible and a 80% claim threshold - you wouldn't want any diseased fish hanging round in the pens if they weren't going to market. Costs money to dispose of them, too.

Course - none of that would never happen, right?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ption_by_canadian_food_inspection_agency.html
http://www.straight.com/news/marine...lantic-salmon-broughton-archipelago-fish-farm
http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/fr/story/remain-calm-and-keep-eating/11455

Might be interesting to see if there was a correlation between years/sites reporting outbreaks and numbers of escapees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent,

Are you actually reading my posts? I pointed out that CFIA compensates all farmers a fact that you negkected to mention when you said salmon farmers received compensation.

Free sewerage and aeration Don't think so. I've seen the invoices for compressor rental and the diesel they used.

Are you suggesting that fish farmin is the only industry that receives Gov R&D Support?

Have you ever had a farm quarantined by CFIA? Ever been involved in the process? If not, then stop making conspiratorial accusations regarding the CFIA process. CFIA doesn't ask the farmer what they want, they tell the farmer whta's going to occur and how they want it done.

Ever taken out an insurance policy on a fish farm inventory? If not, then stop making up conspiracies and accusations of unethical behaviour. Claims can be made, but the cost of being insured against that specific cause is going to rise, if you can get coverage at all.

ISA is not a human pathogen, nor is IHN, IPN, VHS, BKD, and any other fish pathogen. Reason is quite simple. Fish are cold blooded, humans are warm blooded. Our body temp "burns" up fish pathogens. All sockeye naturally have IHN, so if you have eaten any, you've eaten IHN. Actually wwhen you eat a wild salmon you don't know what they are carrying. They could be loaded down with any amount of bacteria, viruses and you wouldn't know it. Farmed fish on the other hand have been tested, so you know what you are getting. Go on eat wild salmon. I guess you guys think ignorance is bliss.
 
i suggest everyone read the book 'four fish'. it is clear that any fish farming enterprise cannot exist without government subsidy. for every pound of saleable salmon, three pounds of fish food must be provided. that leads to overharvest of forage fish, herring, sand lance, smelt....., and has a direct impact on the biomass that supports the vast numbers of other fish trying to find a dinner. sustainable, 'everymans fish' should turn attention to talapia, a vegetarian fish that can be raised most anywhere in the world. with acidification and global climate change, continuing these net pen enterprises is going to cost governments ever increasing dollars which might be spent on programs that have a vastly superior ROI.
 
Agent,

Are you actually reading my posts? I pointed out that CFIA compensates all farmers a fact that you negkected to mention when you said salmon farmers received compensation.

Are you suggesting that fish farmin is the only industry that receives Gov R&D Support?

Sockeyefry2, we are unfortunately reading your posts and we can immediately recognise some of your insidious tactics. You have deliberately deflected again by trying to bring in the whole area of government subsidies to multiple industries. Let’s just stick with open net pen salmon feed lots shall we? Agent brought up the millions in subsidies and compensation you get from us taxpayers as a counterpoint to the wonderful economic benefits you keep touting. Any so called benefits you claim are seriously off set by this Govt support. End of story.
Free sewerage and aeration Don't think so. I've seen the invoices for compressor rental and the diesel they used. .
Of course you get free aeration and sewage! That is why you use the open net pen technology so you can externalise all those costs.
There are huge numbers of papers out there that analyse the bethnic impacts of salmon feed lots. Here is a quote from this one.
Hardy (2000) points out that a salmon farm of 200,000 fish releases as much fecal solids per day as 62,595 people.

http://www.aquaticnuisance.org/word...e Environmental Impacts, Atlantic Salmon,.pdf

Here is another.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/aei2010/1/q001p033.pdf

Not that you will ever read them!

As to using compressors for aeration. No doubt the economic imperative forces you to keep so many fish in overcrowded conditions, even the water flows in some of the inlets in BC may not be enough to keep the fish alive at certain time and tides. But for every problem this industry has a techno-fix. Such an idiotic industry forever adding to the complexity of management, to no avail!

Have you ever had a farm quarantined by CFIA? Ever been involved in the process? If not, then stop making conspiratorial accusations regarding the CFIA process. CFIA doesn't ask the farmer what they want, they tell the farmer whta's going to occur and how they want it done. .
In this article quoted by Agent
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ption_by_canadian_food_inspection_agency.html

It says “The ruling is the first time the CFIA has opted not to destroy fish carrying the virus since it started regulating the fish farming industry in 2005.”

Why was that do you suppose? Could it be pressure from the feed lot industry combined with downward pressure on compensation budgets so this was the only option left?

Ever taken out an insurance policy on a fish farm inventory? If not, then stop making up conspiracies and accusations of unethical behaviour. Claims can be made, but the cost of being insured against that specific cause is going to rise, if you can get coverage at all. .

The cost of being insured is going up because the outbreak of diseases is becoming more common and CFIA is forced to get involved. And these diseases will obviously become more common as the numbers of feed lots go up and they get larger. More opportunities for viral mutation and transmission. Especially as those damn wild fish keep swimming near you feed lots!!

As to unethical behaviour, that started the moment this industry moved in to a shared public resource, like medieval barons enclosing and fencing common grazing land, and started your grand ecological and environmental experiment. If you can’t see the moral and ethical violations behind that, you certainly will not see the ethical problems in lobbying Govt to create laws making it an offense to report fish diseases, for example. Or refusing to reveal your disease data obtained during the use of a public resource!

ISA is not a human pathogen, nor is IHN, IPN, VHS, BKD, and any other fish pathogen. Reason is quite simple. Fish are cold blooded, humans are warm blooded. Our body temp "burns" up fish pathogens. All sockeye naturally have IHN, so if you have eaten any, you've eaten IHN. Actually wwhen you eat a wild salmon you don't know what they are carrying. They could be loaded down with any amount of bacteria, viruses and you wouldn't know it. Farmed fish on the other hand have been tested, so you know what you are getting. Go on eat wild salmon. I guess you guys think ignorance is bliss.
Humans have obviously adapted and evolved to deal with any viruses found in wild fish, so your insinuation that because we know what is in feed lot fish it is somehow “better” is a specious argument.

As to whether these viruses can ever affect humans you cannot know that for sure in future. You are conducting a grand experiment and mutations are going to occur in your crowded pens. That is evolutionary biology 101. Much more likely and therefore serious, is the impact these mutations are eventually going to have on wild salmon and the ecology of their environment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent, Are you actually reading my posts?
YA SF I am. I'm wondering if you are reading your posts...
Free sewerage and aeration Don't think so. I've seen the invoices for compressor rental and the diesel they used.
Englishman already covered this one. The cost of the extra aeration and pumping for closed containment is the reason you claim that the industry can't transition to CC. Remember that excuse coming on your own posts? I do. Are you sure you are reading your own posts? Thanks English for picking-up on this.
CFIA doesn't ask the farmer what they want, they tell the farmer whta's going to occur and how they want it done.
I truly wish that were true, SF.

Yes, once the green or red light is given from above – the on-the-ground CFIA inspectors do run with whatever enforcement decisions made on the “higher” levels.

BUT there is substantial political interference in that decision-making process. There is pressure from the PMO and Communications Branches, pressure from industry lobbyists, and pressure from independents like Morton et. al. (if they actually find-out about some of the stupid errors of judgement that seem to be rife in the regulation of your industry).

I don't need to remind you of the media stories we have seen about the Harper government silencing everyone from cabinet ministers to scientists to librarians.

As far as the CFIA goes – it soley had industry pressure until recently, and is most comfortable engaging with industry lobbyists and PR shrills - "winning" the PR war over us dumb, i-litter-ate peasants who "only read the headlines" (see Con Kiley's emails on the Cohen transcripts). This consulting with the public and FN thang is really uncomfortable and unwelcome for them.

Why is it that INSTEAD of notifying affected FN about suspected disease outbreaks – CFIA INSTEAD has a meeting with Rob Morley for the B.C. Seafood Alliance, Ruth Salmon for the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, and Mary Ellen Walling for the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association?

Why is it that when they are questioned about this at the Cohen hearings, they respond that their primary duty is to protect the fish farm trade?

They are very well aware of the trade consequences if the borders close to the farmed fish market. Look at what happened to the beef industry:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/left+lasting+mark/8405382/story.html

Why is it that instead of ensuring that the ISA-infected fish from the Shelburne site was destroyed – CFIA allowed the farm to grow the fish for another 6 months so they would be big enough to take to market DESPITE the risks to the adjacent wild stocks?

It's called political interference, collusion, corruption – take your pick.
...stop making up conspiracies and accusations of unethical behaviour
Ya, the industry would never do anything “unethical” or “illegal” - right...
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/main...ture-pay-490000-after-illegal-pestici/1354960
http://www.dennisatchison.com/conne...tory-demonstrates-how-community-needs-to-heal

You know SF – I believe that YOU wouldn't do anything illegal (and I mean that, no sarcasm intended) – but there's dozens – if not hundreds of site managers on farms on both coasts. They are under pressure to make money. Not all of them will do things above board. Same for their bosses and company officials - example Cooke Aquaculture - see link I posted. Often, fish farms are also in the middle of "nowhere", with not many people around. Site managers are only human, after all.

This is a factor that DFO has recognized in other “fisheries”. Many fisheries have 3rd party observers – but NOT the fish farm industry.

e.g. Reporting of escapees is “voluntary”. Kinda like telling people that they need to drive to the nearest cop shop and tell the RCMP that they were speeding. On the books it would look like almost no speeding. In reality – the roads would be treacherous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought we were talking about disease here Aqua?

"but there's dozens – if not hundreds of site managers on farms on both coasts. They are under pressure to make money. Not all of them will do things above board."

What exactly do you mean by that?

"Often, fish farms are also in the middle of "nowhere", with not many people around. Site managers are only human, after all." - As are many of the hundreds of thousands of sportfishing boats on the coast.

"This is a factor that DFO has recognized in other “fisheries”. Many fisheries have 3rd party observers – but NOT the fish farm industry." - Or the sportfishing industry.

e.g. Reporting of escapees is “voluntary”. Kinda like telling people that they need to drive to the nearest cop shop and tell the RCMP that they were speeding. On the books it would look like almost no speeding. In reality – the roads would be treacherous.

When a farm is harvested out if the numbers don't add up it is investigated.

You can't just have profit go missing - it is pretty simple actually, never mind all the other areas of regulation and eyes out there.

These attacks on the character of salmon farmers only goes to show your bias and hostility - they do nothing to further the conversation.

I think your points may actually lead to the conclusion that humans engaged in fishing would have far more potential to harm wild stocks than those who choose to farm.

Maybe instead of Copy Pasta op-ed examples of why you feel fish farmers are bad people you should concentrate on providing evidence to support your view that farms actually do harm?

(And don't tell me that you already have - you seem to be very convinced, but the rest of the world may not agree)
 
CK: You've been quiet for a few days. Trip to Campbell River for grub and beer; with no internet?

What I mean is that w/o adequate oversight, some managers and companies will do things the cheap way. That is not specific to just the open net-pen industry. What "escaped" and what is a "mort" is only is what the farms report on paper. There is no way you can trust those numbers or trust farms to accurately and honestly to "voluntarily" report escapees. Numbers of fish in a pen are just a guestimate. You should already know that, CK - if you do work on the pens - but, maybe a media shrill would not have enough background to know this..

Yes, validating sports-caught fish is 1 other example that should *NOT* be used to justify unprofessional conduct by farm operations, or to deflect the conversation away from critiques of the open net-pen industry operations.

It doesn't even rate a "nice try", CK.

How do you explain that all 15 sites of Cooke Aquaculture were found to have used cypermethrin and impacted lobsters along with other crustaceans. That directive had to have come from a position in the company above a site manager, even. It also means that they are having a crises with resistance to Slice on their sea lice.

“Cooke used the pesticide to address a major sea lice infestation in their open pen salmon farm, knowing that it was illegal to do so,” Environment Canada officials wrote in the release.

Matthew Abbott of the St. Andrew’s, N.B., environmental watchdog group Fundy Baykeeper said: "It highlights how deep rooted the problem is,” he said of violation and resulting penalties. “Any ocean waters need to treated with great care. We’re not convinced the existing rules are adequate".

ya, I know the next thing you will be trying to get us to believe that this behaviour never happens anywheres else, or never at any time in the development of the industry, or or or...[insert disengenious deflective claim here]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It truly is amazing that the salmon feedlots find the need to engage constantly on a sportfishing forum, to try to convince sport fisherman that their industry is a good thing.
In my opinion, if there is any potential to harm or damage wild fish stocks, then they should NOT be there. These feedlot workers on this forum have already acknowledged that there is some harm being done. Therefore, these farms do NOT have the right to be in the water. For these guys to acknowledge their industry does create negative side effects to wild populations in one post, then the next saying they care about the environment and also wild salmon, is totally hypocritical. To me, it reduces all credibility.
I would post how I really feel, but I don't want to get kicked off the forum.
 
Back
Top