Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

I think Trudeau will need to find a way to get around his knee jerk reactionary statement about fish farm removal. Some means of saving face and saving jobs ... I predict those FN wanting farms on their traditional territories will be a part of that solution.
Welcome Rico, good luck with your question.
 
This article seems to show aquaculture improving all new projects.

https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...ntal-sustainability-and-business-results.html

The 15 projects announced today will help BC based fisheries and aquaculture businesses adopt greener practices that will improve energy efficiency, reduce waste and lessen climate change causing carbon dioxide emissions. Projects include $424,219 in funding to Brown’s Bay Packing Co, which will prevent bacteria and viruses from fish processing waste from entering the marine environment, $74,437 to the Sport Fishing Institute of B.C. to support rockfish conservation, $43,488 to Taste of B.C. Aquafarms Inc to install a solar hot water system, eliminating fossil fuel consumption and reducing carbon emissions, over $100,000 to Sth’oqi aquaculture Ltd Partnership to install a machine to convert fish waste to fertilizer and low-carbon energy to power their land-based aquaculture facility, and almost $100,000 to Atchison Fishing Ltd to support a new efficient engine that will reduce fuel use and carbon emissions.
This is a year old.
 
I think Trudeau will need to find a way to get around his knee jerk reactionary statement about fish farm removal. Some means of saving face and saving jobs ... I predict those FN wanting farms on their traditional territories will be a part of that solution.
Welcome Rico, good luck with your question.
You mean another unkept promise? Already.
 
Another new member defending FFs. Must be a hot thread.

As far as "being in a tizzy" - it seems the FF pundits are.

As far as looking after the public's resource verses quarterly shareholder profits - we need a responsible dialogue with the regulators - something like the Cohen Commission of Inquiry - which ended-up stating:

#3 - The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.

Cohen’s supporting remark:

when one government department (in this case DFO) has mandates both to conserve wild stocks and to promote the salmon-farming industry, there are circumstances in which it may find itself in a conflict of interest because of divided loyalties

#11 - In order to provide a longer time series of data on which to test for relationships between stressors found at salmon farms and the health of Fraser River sockeye salmon, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should continue to require the collection of fish health data directly from operators of salmon farms and through DFO audits.

#12 - For research purposes beyond routine monitoring, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should require, as a condition of licence, that the operator of a salmon farm provide, on reasonable demand by DFO, fish samples, including live fish or fresh silvers (recently deceased fish), in a quantity and according to a protocol specified by DFO.

#13 - The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should give non-government scientific researchers timely access to primary fish health data collected through DFO’s routine monitoring programs, including data that relate to farmed or wild salmon.

#14 - Beginning immediately and continuing until at least September 30, 2020, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should ensure that: the maximum duration of any licence issued under the Pacific Aquaculture Regulations for a net-pen salmon farm in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) does not exceed one year;

· DFO does not issue new licences for net-pen salmon farms in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2); and

· DFO does not permit increases in production at any existing net-pen salmon farm in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2)

Cohen’s supporting remarks:

I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed to Fraser River sockeye from salmon farms is serious or irreversible. Disease transfer occurs between wild and farmed fish, and I am satisfied that salmon farms along the sockeye migration route have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases that could have a negative impact on Fraser

“…based on the information before me, British Columbians will not tolerate more than a minimal risk of serious harm to Fraser River sockeye from salmon farms

In my view, the risk of serious harm that salmon farms pose to Fraser River sockeye along their entire migration route – not just 1 km from the mouth of the river – needs to be considered and reflected in siting criteria

DFO was not able to tell me that every salmon farm has received an environmental assessment

DFO Science has done little or no research to assess the combined impact on sockeye salmon as they migrate past several different salmon farms along their migratory route”

Given the risk of serious harm posed by salmon farms to Fraser River sockeye, DFO needs to ensure that existing farm sites conform to the most up-to-date knowledge to ensure that risks are minimal.”

the regional director general of DFO’s Pacific Region told me that new standards put in place by DFO for site selection under the Pacific Aquaculture Regulatory

Program would apply only to new salmon farm sites, not those originally licensed under the provincial regulatory regime. These examples cause me concern. They provide little confidence that the most up-to-date standards and practices are being applied to all salmon farms potentially affecting Fraser River sockeye, irrespective of when the farm site first became operational. If siting measures are to serve as a useful tool to minimize the risk of serious harm to Fraser River sockeye, they must be adaptive to new scientific information. If new information reveals that existing farm locations pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm to Fraser River sockeye, those farms should be removed”

#15 - The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should explicitly consider proximity to migrating Fraser River sockeye when siting salmon farms.

#16 - After seeking comment from First Nations and stakeholders, and after responding to challenge by scientific peer review, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should, by March 31, 2013, and every five years thereafter, revise salmon farm siting criteria to reflect new scientific information about salmon farms situated on or near Fraser River sockeye salmon migration routes as well as the cumulative effects of these farms on these sockeye.

#17 -The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should apply revised siting criteria to all licensed salmon farm sites. Farms that no longer comply with siting criteria should be promptly removed or relocated to sites that comply with current siting criteria.

#18 - If at any time between now and September 30, 2020, the minister of fisheries and oceans determines that net-pen salmon farms in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon, he or she should promptly order that those salmon farms cease operations.

#19 - On September 30, 2020, the minister of fisheries and oceans should prohibit net-pen salmon farming in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) unless he or she is satisfied that such farms pose at most a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon. The minister’s decision should summarize the information relied on and include detailed reasons. The decision should be published on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ website.

#20 - To inform the decision under Recommendation 19, the minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should take the following steps:

· Conduct the research and analysis recommended in Recommendation 68 and publish the results of this research.

· Assess any relationships between salmon farming variables compiled in the fish health database and Fraser River sockeye health or productivity.

· Invite from the salmon-farming industry and from other interested parties written submissions respecting the risk that net-pen salmon farms pose to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon.

· Publish on the DFO website the full text of all submissions received.

· Provide to submitters a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing to other submissions and publish such responses on the DFO website
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So - have we checked all of these off this list already???
 
There wasn’t only cheering outside Cohen’s report launch. BC Conservative Party leader John Cummins–who has long been an activist for commercial fisheries, occasionally clashing with Aboriginal fishers and the DFO on the waters and in the courts–called the report an “abject failure.”

“F-minus,” he replied to Windspeaker’s term-paper query. “It’s a complete and abject failure.

“The expectations were quite simple: that he was going to provide a blueprint for management of the Fraser River fishery,” Cummins continued. “That was the responsibility. It’s not there.
“He heard testimony in there that 97 per cent of the fish that are caught under [Aboriginal] food, social and ceremonial licenses were sold illegally. I don’t see where he’s addressing that. I don’t see where he’s giving advice to the department to ensure that the law is enforced. That’s the problem – there are no concrete steps or suggestions in that report
 
Cohen left the implementation up to DFO - the promoter and protector of the open net-cage industry - but did have some specific guidelines quoted above.

I'll repeat - So - have we checked all of these off this list already???
 
Does not look like it, sill the promotor and regulator of destructive FN net fisheries.

Recommendation 36
Following consultation with First Nations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should:

articulate a clear working definition for food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) fishing
assess, and adjust if necessary, all existing FSC allocations in accordance with that definition
In fall 2018, DFO launched a process to co-develop a consultation strategy with Pacific Region Indigenous groups on Indigenous fisheries allocations, specifically related to food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) fisheries. This consultation process is intended to improve transparency and enhance understanding regarding the decision making process for Indigenous fisheries allocations and ultimately advance relationships between DFO and Indigenous groups in the Pacific Region. The aim is to reach a shared agreement on a preferred strategy for DFO to consult and engage BC First Nations on Indigenous fisheries allocations, specifically for FSC, moving forward.

In order to complement and inform this co-development process, DFO Pacific Region is preparing to release an external draft Framework for Changes to Existing Food, Social and Ceremonial Fisheries Allocations as part of the onset of the process.
 
Last edited:
I don't think carbon footprint is the problem with FF. Most of the stuff on that list appear to focused on that. Good sure, but not really the big issue with FF in general.
 
The carbon footprint is a nice thing that helps with virtues but not really impactful. I thought it was still rather interesting to see that the industry is actually getting its sh** together and is on its way to becoming an accepted industry. I am not sure it can ever satisfy all the "nay Sayers" but that might help it keep nimble and evolving. Seems like a bunch of new posters are not as negative towards the industry. Stay informed and keep looking for the answers.
 
Interesting how FF boosters insist on deflecting the focus - whether it is John Cummins or FSC fishing, or the eclipse...
 
Going to nip this in the bud. Keep your personal innuendos about other members out of the forum. Some of you are new here since we lifted our moratorium on FF threads that was precipitated by all the personal and general nonsense that started to occur. We won't shut this thread down but bans will be handed out to those of you that can't resist calling others out or making it personal.
 
Back
Top