Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

now "IF" it was just this simple a solution, but as we all know, much more complicated than that

From aa post above,

“But when a fish farm first came…that’s when everything changed.”—Alfred “Baker” Coon (Supplementary material, item
 
agentaqua said:

facets-2021-0101f6.gif

Richmond et al. (2005) contextualized the arrival of the salmon farms as a continuation of the colonial process against the Kwakwaka’wakw nations. Figure 6 provides a sense of the scale of the salmon farms as they exist presently.
Click to expand...

it says the problems started in 1781. That’s a we bit before fish farms showed up

Subsequent years 1781–1910 mark the increasing impact of these relations and ultimately, full colonization of the Kwakwaka’wakw peoples. The first smallpox epidemic hit the coast in 1781–1782 with disruptions of life, culture, trade, and autonomy (Boyd 1994).
 
Well, the "problems" of "colonization" started a wee bit before fish farms, arrived WMY.

Since this thread is focused on FFs and "IF" they have been improving - or instead have been (at least in part) responsible for some of the declines in wild stock abundances thru wild-cultured stock interactions that are impossible to fully mitigate because of the open net-pen technology...

One wouldn't wish to be seen as being dishonest, misleading, nor disingenuous when discounting the timing of a problem by (purposely?) pointing out the wrong problem at hand - would we?
 
agentaqua said:
Since this thread is focused on FFs and "IF" they have been improving - or instead have been (at least in part) responsible for some of the declines in wild stock abundances thru wild-cultured stock interactions that are impossible to fully mitigate because of the open net-pen technology...
Click to expand...

wcvi stocks are an issue? its that's where the next agenda for closures is going to be?
 
Well, assuming this is not a question designed to distract from the past couple posts on watersheds within the territories of the Kwakwaka’wakw nations and that last article posted and referenced impacts from FFs - the answer I have is that it depends on where you live and which stocks you are concerned about.

There are at least 2, and possibly more (e.g. NOAA, etc.) scientific methodologies to consider in determining what stocks/populations are at some level of "risk". Within the Canadian context - the federal government uses to some extent the COSEWIC/SARA combined processes, along with the latest and greatest risk assessments that have rolled out (or just starting to) under the newest version of the Fisheries Act and the Wild Salmon Policy. Apologies to likely most of the posters on here that already know this stuff in reiterating this.

Recently, DFO has rolled out their newest & greatest salmon program called the "Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative" (PSSI) where they purportedly use the WSP procedures and what escapement data they have in order to prioritize what stocks they consider to be at risk. I wouldn't necessarily consider this list to be an exhaustive list - as DFO (as far as I am aware) were looking @ impacts from commercial fisheries, and in many places have limited if any escapement data to make assumptions on or to even follow stock trends reliably (as I stated previously about the challenges and often inability to track changes at a scale relevant to proving impacts @ the adjacent watershed to a FF level). So I would offer this list as the minimum stocks at some level of risk. The watersheds they have identified in this process include the following stocks/areas verses by watersheds:
PISSI1.pngPISSI2.jpg
 
Last edited:
wildmanyeah said:
seems to me like you were talking about the issues of colonialization
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification, WMY. The article was the authority (not me) talking about the impacts from colonization, where FFs were but 1 impact, but changes were noted after they came into the territory. There is undoubtedly more economic, social, cultural, and fisheries-related impacts than FFs alone - and the article does a decent job listing and proofing those changes along w FF impacts on a bit of a superficial level. But the timeframes line-up with the changes in fish abundances, along with the timeframes of introduced FF diseases.
 
agentaqua said:
Well, assuming this is not a question designed to distract from the past couple posts on watersheds within the territories of the Kwakwaka’wakw nations and that last article posted and referenced impacts from FFs - the answer I have is that it depends on where you live and which stocks you are concerned about.

There are at least 2, and possibly more (e.g. NOAA, etc.) scientific methodologies to consider in determining what stocks/populations are at some level of "risk". Within the Canadian context - the federal government uses to some extent the COSEWIC/SARA combined processes, along with the latest and greatest risk assessments that have rolled out (or just starting to) under the newest version of the Fisheries Act and the Wild Salmon Policy. Apologies to likely most of the posters on here that already know this stuff in reiterating this.

Recently, DFO has rolled out their newest & greatest salmon program called the "Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative" (PSSI) where they purportedly use the WSP procedures and what escapement data they have in order to prioritize what stocks they consider to be at risk. I wouldn't necessarily consider this list to be an exhaustive list - as DFO (as far as I am aware) were looking @ impacts from commercial fisheries, and in many places have limited if any escapement data to make assumptions on or to even follow stock trends reliably (as I stated previously about the challenges and often inability to track changes at a scale relevant to proving impacts @ the adjacent watershed to a FF level). So I would offer this list as the minimum stocks at some level of risk. The watersheds they have identified in this process include the following stocks/areas verses by watersheds:
View attachment 74378View attachment 74379
Click to expand...
Note, not a Steelhead on the report.
 
OldBlackDog said:
Note, not a Steelhead on the report.
Click to expand...
Yup! And that's sad, isn't it OBD? Like the Thompson and Chilcotin steelhead populations as assessed as Endangered by COSEWIC which recommended an emergency listing order under the federal Species at Risk Act. Want some more bad news (prob. not):

Under COSEWIC (but NOT necessarily out from SARA and NOT necessarily thru the Fisheries Minister - 2 more steps) these Chinook species/populations alone are also listed as either "Endangered" or "Threatened" or "Special Concern": (NOTE: "GIC decision Pending" means "Governor in Council", or... in reality - DFO:

Chinook Salmon East Vancouver Island, Ocean, Fall population Special Concern GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon East Vancouver Island, Ocean, Summer population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon East Vancouver Island, Stream, Spring population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Lower Fraser, Ocean, Fall population Threatened GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Lower Fraser, Ocean, Summer population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Lower Fraser, Stream, Spring population Special Concern GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Lower Fraser, Stream, Summer (Upper Pitt) population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Lower Fraser, Stream, Summer population Threatened GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Lower Thompson, Stream, Spring population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Middle Fraser, Stream, Fall population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Chinook Salmon Middle Fraser, Stream, Spring (MFR+GStr) population Threatened GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Chinook Salmon Middle Fraser, Stream, Spring population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Middle Fraser, Stream, Summer population Threatened GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon North Thompson, Stream, Spring population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook North Thompson, Stream, Summer population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Okanagan population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon South Thompson, Stream, Summer 1.2 population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon South Thompson, Stream, Summer 1.3 population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Southern Mainland Boundary Bay, Ocean, Fall population Threatened GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon Upper Fraser, Stream, Spring population Endangered GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon West Vancouver Island, Ocean, Fall (Nootka & Kyuquot) population Threatened GIC decision Pending
Chinook Salmon West Vancouver Island, Ocean, Fall (South) population Threatened GIC decision Pending

So - couple questions:
1/ are all those above-listed Fraser Chinook populations covered under the title: "Summer 4.1"? Cause that's what's listed for Fraser Chinook in PSSI, and
2/ would the West Vancouver Island, Ocean, Fall (Nootka & Kyuquot) populations hang-out near the pens on WCVI?

And out of all that COSEWIC status reports - Here's the all the ones that made it past SARA and the Fisheries Minister:
Maybe best to take that high blood pressure pill, or a couple shots of Scotch - or both...

Anyways back onto FFs...
 
"And out of all that COSEWIC status reports - Here's the all the ones that made it past SARA and the Fisheries Minister:"

not sure what you mean by getting past?
 
Short version: There are a number of sequential steps from the start of getting on COSEWICs candidate list all the way out thru that joined COSEWIC - SARA - Gazette process - and a number of timeframes associated with it, as well. It's a long, convoluted process that has a minimal chance of success @ the end of that process because it goes thru a socioeconomic process before and "IF" the minister decides to list.
 
agentaqua said:
Short version: There are a number of sequential steps from the start of getting on COSEWICs candidate list all the way out thru that joined COSEWIC - SARA - Gazette process - and a number of timeframes associated with it, as well. It's a long, convoluted process that has a minimal chance of success @ the end of that process because it goes thru a socioeconomic process before and "IF" the minister decides to list.
Click to expand...
Ya, knew that, thought you meant something else
 
Engo's knew the power of partnering with first nations to removed fish farms. It should come to no surprise to them that now fish farms are partnering with first nations.

I guess the question will be can the government impose blanketed moratoriums on first nations like, no fish farming in your territory, no old growth logging in your territory ect ect ect.
 
wildmanyeah said:
Engo's knew the power of partnering with first nations to removed fish farms. It should come to no surprise to them that now fish farms are partnering with first nations.

I guess the question will be can the government impose blanketed moratoriums on first nations like, no fish farming in your territory, no old growth logging in your territory ect ect ect.
Click to expand...

The road has been paved in the direction thats going, to hell with any colonial gov to keep on governing their lives..."rules for thee not for me"
(not so)funny thing is many "nations" cant agree on what day it is..
a brilliant pr move also by the BC colonial government to pass the buck ,so to speak, on any decisions of "old growth" logging onto the 1st nations..
 

Leblanc says during a review of Grieg salmon farms in Placentia Bay, Blanchard, "called an urgent meeting with the co-chairs and the CSAS (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat) coordinator prior to the start of the peer review process and requested that at the end of the meeting, the co-chairs request a vote by participants on whether to publish the resulting science advice or postpone the meeting to a later date."

Leblanc said this is contrary to CSAS policy and process, as the findings of all peer review processes are published to support transparency and openness

Situation normal...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
The Salmon Skyline - A good read.
Replies
0
Views
499
Rockfish
R
Whole in the Water
Concerns about herring kills at B.C. fish farms
Replies
26
Views
3K
Fishing?
F
B
Integrity commissioner launches investigation of DFO officials over alleged attempts to silence scientists IAN BAILEY
Replies
6
Views
1K
Fishing?
F
R
The Crisis Facing Alberta Wildlife Expert biologists are being elbowed aside by politicians and special interests.
Replies
0
Views
374
RalphH
R
Dogbreath
Tofino Finally Stops Shitting into the Ocean
Replies
1
Views
450
agentaqua
A
Back
Top