What can WE do to help save the salmon?
- Thread starter Dave S
- Start date
roger foxsea............you have the helm............reelfast clear.............
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Sorry...
All I'm saying, reelfast (in my apparently clumsy way
) is that when many people here are trying very hard to develop understanding (Charlie has been exceptionally helpful), learning to pull together (in spite of differences), searching to find a way to move forward with a leader (Alexandra, we have decided, is a good one) brainstorming to develop ideas for raising public awareness of our shared concerns around pipelines, fish farms and public policy, showing our concerned presence at public gatherings (Enbridge Protest, DFO hearing), reaching out to create allegiances with environmental groups (not our immediate inclination), working to raise funds for possible legal action (Lorne's lead-melting rally, etc.) ...
...and then to have all that positive effort blown off again, as just a "feel-good circle jerk" (your words), is just a bit annoying.
I hope you can appreciate that feeling with a view from this side. Many of us will be attending the meeting with Dr. Alex Morton (thanks again, Lorne) this weekend. We will have a better-developed strategy and action plan after that discussion. We are actually making some good progress...
All I'm saying, reelfast (in my apparently clumsy way
) is that when many people here are trying very hard to develop understanding (Charlie has been exceptionally helpful), learning to pull together (in spite of differences), searching to find a way to move forward with a leader (Alexandra, we have decided, is a good one) brainstorming to develop ideas for raising public awareness of our shared concerns around pipelines, fish farms and public policy, showing our concerned presence at public gatherings (Enbridge Protest, DFO hearing), reaching out to create allegiances with environmental groups (not our immediate inclination), working to raise funds for possible legal action (Lorne's lead-melting rally, etc.) ......and then to have all that positive effort blown off again, as just a "feel-good circle jerk" (your words), is just a bit annoying.
I hope you can appreciate that feeling with a view from this side.
Many of us will be attending the meeting with Dr. Alex Morton (thanks again, Lorne) this weekend. We will have a better-developed strategy and action plan after that discussion. We are actually making some good progress... alexandramorton
Member
Is there anyone on this list fishing the Vedder River for steelhead?
If anyone kills one, please contact me ASAP, I would like to send you a data sheet and collect samples from it, I would need pictures, weight, length and the questions answered on the sheet. The Vedder is one of the hotspots for the ISA virus and steelhead are the most genetically similar to the natural host of the virus. You can email me at gorbuscha@gmail.com I know the season is ending and the river is high - but just thought I would ask
If anyone kills one, please contact me ASAP, I would like to send you a data sheet and collect samples from it, I would need pictures, weight, length and the questions answered on the sheet. The Vedder is one of the hotspots for the ISA virus and steelhead are the most genetically similar to the natural host of the virus. You can email me at gorbuscha@gmail.com I know the season is ending and the river is high - but just thought I would ask
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Question... "Divided you fall... United you stand"?
The Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish (kwik wasoo tea noox & ha kwa meesh) First Nation (KAFN) on behalf of 7 First Nation tribes launched a Class Action lawsuit involving the B.C. Government's regulation of open net-cage salmon farms, and the very survival of B.C.'s wild salmon.
1) Is this Class Action lawsuit still pending?
If so, since it is a Class Action, due to the recent findings of disease via the Cohen Commission and recent discovery and the admitting on TV by Dr. Gary Marty that in 2010, 75% of the farmed salmon carried the PLV (virus) in Atlantic farmed salmon.
2) Is it possible for the citizens of British Columbia to join this Class Action lawsuit?
3) Is it possible for the citizens of the U.S. - Pacific Northwest states.
I am also assuming since this is a Class Action the same firm can represent all without a conflict of interest?
Precedent-setting First Nations class action takes on fish farms
7 December, 2010
On Wednesday (December 1st) the Honourable Mr. Justice Slade certified a class action brought by the Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation against the government of British Columbia. The class action alleges:
that the Province’s licensing of fish farms and exercise of regulatory authority over their operation has resulted in sea lice infestations in wild salmon stocks, and that this constitutes an infringement of the fishing rights of proposed members of the class.
Wow! It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this precedent setting decision (which is very likely to be appealed) for:
•Environmental and First Nations class actions in British Columbia; and
•The campaign against fish farms, which will finally be able to get some tough questions about the legality of fish farms answered.
Let’s address those 2 points in turn.
Class actions in BC
Class actions are lawsuits brought not for one individual (or in this case one First Nation) but on behalf of a large group of people. By hearing a single case, the courts hope to resolve key questions common to the whole group, facilitating settlement of the many, many cases that would be too small or too complex to come before the courts one-by-one.
The first step in a class action is to have the action “certified”, which means that the Court accepts that there are enough common questions raised by the “class” that the case is best heard as a single class action. Class actions related to the environment are notoriously difficult to get certified. West Coast has written previously about Smith v. Inco, the first environmental class action to be certified in Canada. The Kwicksutaineuk case is the first environment-related class action to be certified in British Columbia.
It’s also the first class action based on a constitutional claim by a First Nation to be certified anywhere in Canada. Indeed, the BC Attorney-General’s lawyers went so far as to argue, unsuccessfully, that a claim by an individual representing a First Nation could never be validly certified under BC’s Class Proceedings Act.
Justice Slade, in holding that the case should be certified as a class action, rejected the many and varied objections of the province (and the federal government, which also appeared, although not named as a defendant). I’m not going to go through them all here.
I must admit to having some skepticism that this case would be certified when I first heard about it. I had thought that a court would have concerns that the legal issues raised by each of the individual First Nations would overshadow the issues they had in common. Notably, a claim based on the Aboriginal right to fish will require each First Nation to establish, on the basis of their own historic and cultural evidence, that they use the fisheries resource as an inherent part of their culture (while true for all coastal First Nations, the Court will nonetheless require distinct evidence for each nation). How, I wondered, would a class action proceed when each Nation needs to bring different evidence?
Slade J. answered this question by focusing on whether the common questions – related to the impacts of sea lice on wild stocks and similar issues – might remove the need for a court case to proceed at all:
Based on the analysis of the common issues set out above, it seems that this class action may have the ability to resolve the entirety of the litigation, if the procedural tools provided in the Class Proceedings Act are utilized. In any event, a finding that fish farms do not affect wild salmon would dispose of this litigation in favour of the defendants, obviating the need for any further proceedings. …
And later:
The proposed representative plaintiff is not seeking a declaration of rights as applicable to their ongoing exercise. … The central question in this matter is whether fish farming has resulted in damage to wild salmon stocks. If this is established, proof of damages may turn on proof of aboriginal fishing rights, but that would not necessarily call for an analysis on questions of infringement and justification at the level required when aboriginal rights are raised as a defence to charges under regulatory statutes. … Here, the infringement is said to be a reduction in a fishery in which the First Nations have a constitutionally protected interest. There is nothing novel in the proposition that the aboriginal peoples of coastal British Columbia were, at and prior to contact, sustained by catching wild salmon. If the evidence should establish that fish farming is damaging that resource in a material way, the defendants’ argument on justification would be interesting, to say the least.
Finally, even if the common issues will not dispose of the entirety of aboriginal rights, their adjudication may well provide the foundation for informed and useful negotiations between the parties, a particularly important consideration in the context of this case.
Slade J.’s approach displays common sense – recognizing that the truly contentious legal issue is not whether the affected First Nations have rights to fish, but whether fish farms, and the province’s regulation of those fish farms, have impacted the wild stocks upon which the First Nations’ rights rely. That, and not the complex questions of proof involved in establishing Aboriginal rights, can and should be the focus of the Class Action as it moves forward.
Slade J. is clearly very aware of the potential for this litigation to get bogged down. He repeatedly notes that the Class Proceedings Act allows judges to take an active role in managing class actions, to ensure that the correct issues are considered in an appropriate manner.
It will be fascinating to see how this approach to certification, if it is upheld in any appeal, changes when and how claims based on Aboriginal rights and title are brought in Canadian courts.
Impacts for fish farms
So now we have a class action that will place a question of huge importance, both from a legal and political point of view, squarely before the courts: “to what extent, if at all, has salmon aquaculture impacted on Wild Salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago.” The findings will be political dynamite, to the point that the province and the federal government might actually choose to negotiate a resolution with the Kwicksutaneuk rather than have a court pronounce an answer to these questions.
Some may argue that the courts have no business wading in on political issues. Indeed, the province tried to suggest to Slade J. that this was what U.S. courts refer to as a political question. Fortunately, the Canadian courts have never accepted that they cannot examine a legal question that happens to have political dimensions.
West Coast Environmental Law says that these are not inherently political issues. They are only political because the province and the federal government, who are responsible for protecting both Aboriginal and public rights in respect of fish, have failed to take legal action, and have denied the existence of a legal problem. If all the science is correct, as we believe it is, that open net fish farming has been destroying wild stocks, then this is a violation not only of First Nations' rights in those salmon, but of the rights of all British Columbians to healthy salmon runs.
We congratulate the Kwicksutaneuk and their lawyers at Camp Fiorante Matthews and Robertson Law on this precedent-setting win, and wish them luck in the next stages of this important case.
By Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer
http://wcel.org/resources/environme...g-first-nations-class-action-takes-fish-farms
“Seven different First Nations move forward toward certification of their class action lawsuit against the BC and Canadian governments - to protect their traditional territory in the Broughton Archipelago from the impacts of salmon farms on wild salmon. One of the first lawsuits of its kind - based on constitutionally recognized aboriginal title and rights - the pivotal case could help rid the Broughton of the fish farms that have wreaked havoc on the marine environment and traditional aboriginal food sources. Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation addressed the media on the steps of the BC Supreme Court in Vancouver, as the one-week certification hearing began. Following the hearing, the judge will decide whether to certify the class action suit to go to trial.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojey_GYsbi0
The Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish (kwik wasoo tea noox & ha kwa meesh) First Nation (KAFN) on behalf of 7 First Nation tribes launched a Class Action lawsuit involving the B.C. Government's regulation of open net-cage salmon farms, and the very survival of B.C.'s wild salmon.
1) Is this Class Action lawsuit still pending?
If so, since it is a Class Action, due to the recent findings of disease via the Cohen Commission and recent discovery and the admitting on TV by Dr. Gary Marty that in 2010, 75% of the farmed salmon carried the PLV (virus) in Atlantic farmed salmon.
2) Is it possible for the citizens of British Columbia to join this Class Action lawsuit?
3) Is it possible for the citizens of the U.S. - Pacific Northwest states.
I am also assuming since this is a Class Action the same firm can represent all without a conflict of interest?
Precedent-setting First Nations class action takes on fish farms
7 December, 2010
On Wednesday (December 1st) the Honourable Mr. Justice Slade certified a class action brought by the Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation against the government of British Columbia. The class action alleges:
that the Province’s licensing of fish farms and exercise of regulatory authority over their operation has resulted in sea lice infestations in wild salmon stocks, and that this constitutes an infringement of the fishing rights of proposed members of the class.
Wow! It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this precedent setting decision (which is very likely to be appealed) for:
•Environmental and First Nations class actions in British Columbia; and
•The campaign against fish farms, which will finally be able to get some tough questions about the legality of fish farms answered.
Let’s address those 2 points in turn.
Class actions in BC
Class actions are lawsuits brought not for one individual (or in this case one First Nation) but on behalf of a large group of people. By hearing a single case, the courts hope to resolve key questions common to the whole group, facilitating settlement of the many, many cases that would be too small or too complex to come before the courts one-by-one.
The first step in a class action is to have the action “certified”, which means that the Court accepts that there are enough common questions raised by the “class” that the case is best heard as a single class action. Class actions related to the environment are notoriously difficult to get certified. West Coast has written previously about Smith v. Inco, the first environmental class action to be certified in Canada. The Kwicksutaineuk case is the first environment-related class action to be certified in British Columbia.
It’s also the first class action based on a constitutional claim by a First Nation to be certified anywhere in Canada. Indeed, the BC Attorney-General’s lawyers went so far as to argue, unsuccessfully, that a claim by an individual representing a First Nation could never be validly certified under BC’s Class Proceedings Act.
Justice Slade, in holding that the case should be certified as a class action, rejected the many and varied objections of the province (and the federal government, which also appeared, although not named as a defendant). I’m not going to go through them all here.
I must admit to having some skepticism that this case would be certified when I first heard about it. I had thought that a court would have concerns that the legal issues raised by each of the individual First Nations would overshadow the issues they had in common. Notably, a claim based on the Aboriginal right to fish will require each First Nation to establish, on the basis of their own historic and cultural evidence, that they use the fisheries resource as an inherent part of their culture (while true for all coastal First Nations, the Court will nonetheless require distinct evidence for each nation). How, I wondered, would a class action proceed when each Nation needs to bring different evidence?
Slade J. answered this question by focusing on whether the common questions – related to the impacts of sea lice on wild stocks and similar issues – might remove the need for a court case to proceed at all:
Based on the analysis of the common issues set out above, it seems that this class action may have the ability to resolve the entirety of the litigation, if the procedural tools provided in the Class Proceedings Act are utilized. In any event, a finding that fish farms do not affect wild salmon would dispose of this litigation in favour of the defendants, obviating the need for any further proceedings. …
And later:
The proposed representative plaintiff is not seeking a declaration of rights as applicable to their ongoing exercise. … The central question in this matter is whether fish farming has resulted in damage to wild salmon stocks. If this is established, proof of damages may turn on proof of aboriginal fishing rights, but that would not necessarily call for an analysis on questions of infringement and justification at the level required when aboriginal rights are raised as a defence to charges under regulatory statutes. … Here, the infringement is said to be a reduction in a fishery in which the First Nations have a constitutionally protected interest. There is nothing novel in the proposition that the aboriginal peoples of coastal British Columbia were, at and prior to contact, sustained by catching wild salmon. If the evidence should establish that fish farming is damaging that resource in a material way, the defendants’ argument on justification would be interesting, to say the least.
Finally, even if the common issues will not dispose of the entirety of aboriginal rights, their adjudication may well provide the foundation for informed and useful negotiations between the parties, a particularly important consideration in the context of this case.
Slade J.’s approach displays common sense – recognizing that the truly contentious legal issue is not whether the affected First Nations have rights to fish, but whether fish farms, and the province’s regulation of those fish farms, have impacted the wild stocks upon which the First Nations’ rights rely. That, and not the complex questions of proof involved in establishing Aboriginal rights, can and should be the focus of the Class Action as it moves forward.
Slade J. is clearly very aware of the potential for this litigation to get bogged down. He repeatedly notes that the Class Proceedings Act allows judges to take an active role in managing class actions, to ensure that the correct issues are considered in an appropriate manner.
It will be fascinating to see how this approach to certification, if it is upheld in any appeal, changes when and how claims based on Aboriginal rights and title are brought in Canadian courts.
Impacts for fish farms
So now we have a class action that will place a question of huge importance, both from a legal and political point of view, squarely before the courts: “to what extent, if at all, has salmon aquaculture impacted on Wild Salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago.” The findings will be political dynamite, to the point that the province and the federal government might actually choose to negotiate a resolution with the Kwicksutaneuk rather than have a court pronounce an answer to these questions.
Some may argue that the courts have no business wading in on political issues. Indeed, the province tried to suggest to Slade J. that this was what U.S. courts refer to as a political question. Fortunately, the Canadian courts have never accepted that they cannot examine a legal question that happens to have political dimensions.
West Coast Environmental Law says that these are not inherently political issues. They are only political because the province and the federal government, who are responsible for protecting both Aboriginal and public rights in respect of fish, have failed to take legal action, and have denied the existence of a legal problem. If all the science is correct, as we believe it is, that open net fish farming has been destroying wild stocks, then this is a violation not only of First Nations' rights in those salmon, but of the rights of all British Columbians to healthy salmon runs.
We congratulate the Kwicksutaneuk and their lawyers at Camp Fiorante Matthews and Robertson Law on this precedent-setting win, and wish them luck in the next stages of this important case.
By Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer
http://wcel.org/resources/environme...g-first-nations-class-action-takes-fish-farms
“Seven different First Nations move forward toward certification of their class action lawsuit against the BC and Canadian governments - to protect their traditional territory in the Broughton Archipelago from the impacts of salmon farms on wild salmon. One of the first lawsuits of its kind - based on constitutionally recognized aboriginal title and rights - the pivotal case could help rid the Broughton of the fish farms that have wreaked havoc on the marine environment and traditional aboriginal food sources. Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation addressed the media on the steps of the BC Supreme Court in Vancouver, as the one-week certification hearing began. Following the hearing, the judge will decide whether to certify the class action suit to go to trial.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojey_GYsbi0
Last edited by a moderator:
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Great questions, Charlie! At our meeting with Alex last week I asked about the potential for litigation against fish feedlots. Alex mentioned this case was pending. I have no competence to respond to the other 2 questions but it's certainly something worthwhile pursuing. I would also imagine that a great case could be made for U.S. citizens joining in because these Fraser runs are intercepted in Alaskan waters and also there is great risk for viral contamination of the fish from the PNW. That's millions of dollars in lost opportunity because of negligence and/or inaction by Canadian governments.
Dave S
Active Member
LAME! Whoever voted for these douche bags better think twice next time! Looks like we've got a big fight coming.
Dave S
Active Member
So, what have I done to help save the salmon?
Well, I check all our household cleaners for toxic ingredients and recycled the ones that are bad for our waters. http://www.springbreakup.ca/cleaners-101/mobile/
I have also cleaned up around the storm drain by my house to prevent the garbage and sediment from running down the pipe.
I have contacted Uvic's Enviromental Law Centre for advise or assistance regarding a complete disregard for our environment by a local big box store. Oil running into the storm drain....not cool.
I have volunteered my time with couple groups regarding fish counting and hatchery work.
Well, I check all our household cleaners for toxic ingredients and recycled the ones that are bad for our waters. http://www.springbreakup.ca/cleaners-101/mobile/
I have also cleaned up around the storm drain by my house to prevent the garbage and sediment from running down the pipe.
I have contacted Uvic's Enviromental Law Centre for advise or assistance regarding a complete disregard for our environment by a local big box store. Oil running into the storm drain....not cool.
I have volunteered my time with couple groups regarding fish counting and hatchery work.
Little Hawk
Active Member
I read nothing in the Conservative's Act amendment about protecting fish that 'have value' to animals or wildlife, only people?
We didn't start the fire!
We didn't start the fire!
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/letters/Everyone+hand+protecting+salmon/6535068/story.html
This is how a professional lobby for an industry with lots of tax dollar support molds public opinion. The spin in this case is: riding on the coat tails of First Nations, creating jobs and that fish farms are key to saving wild salmon; not the problem.
No talk of course of the many more jobs they put at risk and what it will mean to First Nations if the wild salmon disappear.
They are sure good at though aren’t they and little gems like this usually go unopposed. Corporate media laps it up and avoids all critical analysis of the reality of the situation.
This is how a professional lobby for an industry with lots of tax dollar support molds public opinion. The spin in this case is: riding on the coat tails of First Nations, creating jobs and that fish farms are key to saving wild salmon; not the problem.
No talk of course of the many more jobs they put at risk and what it will mean to First Nations if the wild salmon disappear.
They are sure good at though aren’t they and little gems like this usually go unopposed. Corporate media laps it up and avoids all critical analysis of the reality of the situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Well, as you and I have discussed, Rocky, we can respond:
To the Editor, Times Colonist
In an April 28, 2012 Opinion piece, Mary Ellen Walling, a lobbyist for the Norwegian salmon farmers says: “Our iconic Pacific salmon face many challenges, some of which we as citizens can alleviate and control.”
Many of the challenges our wild salmon face are created by the very salmon feedlots that Ms. Walling represents. For example, the open net pens allow millions of tonnes of untreated waste into our previously pristine waters. Farmed salmon propagate at least 2 killer, highly contagious viruses that are released into our coastal waters . These viruses have been identified by Dr. Marty and Dr. Miller from the D.F.O. and have been found in 94% of the farmed salmon recently tested, from supermarket shelves. These viral infections damaged the hearts of wild salmon and have contributed to the collapse of the Fraser wild sockeye runs. The fish died before spawning.
Ms. Walling asserts that “Government has established clear, strong regulations, monitoring and auditing to ensure our farming practices are successfully protecting wild and farm-raised fish.” Unfortunately this is no longer true. The Harper government has weakened environmental protection legislation and has dramatically cut the D.F.O. budget, to the point that they can no longer monitor or audit the fish farms. Fish farmers have, in fact, refused to allow independent scientific testing. Perhaps they are fearful that public awareness of the disease in their fish will hamper the sales of their product.
Several First Nations, the Kwicksutaineuk, Ha-xwa-mish, Tsawataineuk, Gwawaenuk, Namgis,
Mamtagila and the Mamalilikulla peoples have a certified, class-action lawsuit now pending before the Courts. Their case states that salmon farms have damaged wild salmon runs and destroyed economic opportunities and a way of life for their people. Salmon farms are destroying wild salmon, coastal culture and a vital piece of West-coast life, for people and for our wildlife.
As Ms. Walling says, there certainly are challenges for wild salmon that they can alleviate and control. If salmon feed-lots would only use closed containment and water filtration, they could enhance our wild salmon stocks and our coastal way of life.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Section 35 of the Fisheries Act now states:
35(1) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
(2) No person contravenes subsection (1) by causing the alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat by any means or under any conditions authorized by the Minister or under the regulations made by the Governor in Counsel under this Act
The proposed new Section 35 of the Fisheries Act is as follows:
35(1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity, other than fishing, that results in an adverse effect on a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value.
(2) No person contravenes subsection (1) if
(a) the adverse effect is authorized by the Minister and is produced in accordance with the conditions established by the Minister;
(b) the adverse effect is authorized by a person prescribed by the regulations and is produced in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the regulations;
(c) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions set out in the regulations or with any other authorization issued under this Act;
(d) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in, on, over, under, through or across any Canadian fisheries waters, and
(i) the work, undertaking or activity falls within a class of works, undertakings or activities, or the Canadian fisheries waters fall within a class of Canadian fisheries waters, established by regulation, and
(ii) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the regulations.
http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/d...ams/fisheries/proposed-fisheries-act-changes/
Well, those little changes just may have some very large long term effects and some bad news, also. The way I am reading this... Right now “fish habitat,” which does include migration routes and if taken to court if there were any ‘Atlantic salmon open net pens’ proved to be harming wild salmon stocks (anywhere in Canada) they would have to be (and required) to be removed IAW the fisheries act anywhere they are creating a, “No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.”
Under the proposed changes, the one and only thing required would be, “the adverse effect is authorized by the Minister and is produced in accordance with the conditions established by the Minister;” Meaning if this is implemented, enjoy your “Atlantic open net pen fish farms”! As they will be authorized by the Minister thus making them no longer subject to or able to be removed by Canada Law.
Harper knows under the "present" Fisheries Act when (if ) this ever does gets to court IAW Canada Law - he will lose, unles the Fisheries Act is changed, so, just keep stalling, until he gets the law changed!
Nicely done! Short to the point! Well written!
Last edited by a moderator:
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
The whole Harper fiasco just keeps getting worse - when I though it was as bad as it gets!
Thanks, Charlie. I edited with feedback from Rocky and provided the copy to all Island papers concerned and the Vancouver Sun.
If we get the copy written, do we have a few volunteers to send the stuff in? Thanks.
Deewar25
Well-Known Member
Was very well written Foxsea - I don't see them denying the post based on 'quality', so it will be interesting to see if there is a biased in the media to the big industries, or whether or not they fairly are willing to post both sides of argument. Seems like you nailed it to me.
Did you notice in the paper Friday that they are destroying all the fish at a farm on the east coast for confirmed cases of ISA...yes, even the government admitted to it this time!
Did you notice in the paper Friday that they are destroying all the fish at a farm on the east coast for confirmed cases of ISA...yes, even the government admitted to it this time!
Last edited by a moderator:
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Thanks! If anyone sees articles that need to be responded to, I for one am happy to do so. Let's keep the pressure on and make the public aware.
Nice! That's a big step . . . things may be looking up!
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Guess what "STOP"... ISA"v" has already been confirmed on the east coast and westcoast in Canada, and the U.S.! How many "STOPS" does one need to see and/or want?
If, you "THINK" the only way a "closed cantainment" facility could have gotten ISAv is through "eggs"!
FYI... That just might be a "VERY BIG" problem for "Atlantic fish farms" operating in BC; at least until "Harper" gets Canada Law changed!
Last edited by a moderator:
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Yeah - it looks like we are paying compensation for the fish, too. How dumb can we get! Harper makes George Dubya look like a rocket surgeon.
Deewar25
Well-Known Member
yeah, this is insane....that works out to probably around $5million of our money to pay for these idiots...what happens if we have a disaster of Chilean proportions on the west coast? Are they going to shell out a billion of our money? I have never been more disgusted at the government than I am right now realizes that they wrote in a bailout plan into these guys business.
Similar threads
