Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
I agree with Rico. What recommendations have not been followed from the Cohen project?
It’s your idea agent that those items on your list have not been met. Can you defend that statement?
Last edited:
Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread
- Thread starter islandboy
- Start date
It’s your idea agent that those items on your list have not been met. Can you defend that statement?
Recommendation 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.
This recommendation is directed to the Government of Canada. DFO’s oversight of the salmon farming industry is consistent with its mandate.
The British Columbia Aquaculture Regulatory Program (BCARP) was implemented by DFO in December 2010 following a BC Supreme Court decision which ruled that finfish aquaculture is a fishery and therefore falls under federal jurisdiction. BCARP regulations support the viability and sustainability of the BC aquaculture industry. BCARP derives its mandated activities from the Fisheries Act, Pacific Aquaculture Regulations and Fishery (General) Regulations, and aligns with two DFO strategic outcomes: “Economically Prosperous Maritime Sectors and Fisheries” and “Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems”.
Recommendation 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.
This recommendation has been implemented. Scientific research is being conducted and a disease risk assessment process is underway and will be completed by 2020. If scientific research indicates that net-pen salmon farms in the Discovery Islands pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon, salmon farms in the Discovery Islands will be required to cease operations.
The results of the risk assessment may indicate that further research is required to support Ministerial decisions. Additional funding may be required depending on what further research is needed.
Recommendation 23 – The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should, by September 30, 2013, complete and make public a risk assessment of the interactions of Fraser River sockeye salmon with enhanced salmon in the marine environment.
This recommendation has been implemented in part and science funding has been allocated to support research into the relationship and risks associated with interactions between wild and farmed salmon. Although the issue of interactions is broader than disease risks, to date DFO’s efforts have focused on developing a formal risk assessment approach to examine disease risks to Fraser River sockeye from salmon farms in the Discovery Islands area. DFO plans to conduct a series of risk assessments on different pathogens. Currently, DFO is conducting a risk assessment on the viral disease infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN). This risk assessment is being conducted through a Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) process, which includes participants from outside of DFO. The results of the review will be made public.
The risk assessment is of the health risks posed to wild fish by farmed fish in the Discovery Passage area. Once designed and tested, this approach could be applied to enhancement operations. Additional resources would be required.
Recommendation 67 – The fish health research priorities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should reflect its responsibility for the conservation of wild fish. To that end, DFO’s science managers should encourage innovation and new research into novel diseases and other conditions affecting wild fish, beyond the interests of specific “clients” such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or aquaculture management.
While some work has been done that aligns with this recommendation, it is viewed as not implemented because additional resources would be required to continue and expand this work.
The fish health research priorities of DFO reflect DFO’s responsibility for conservation of wild fish. DFO’s current fish health research priorities for BC focus on the study of pathogens and parasites present on salmon farms and their effects on wild salmonids, especially sockeye salmon.
DFO also supports the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Salmon Foundation, and Genome BC funded) which is conducting large scale assessments of microbes carried by farmed and wild salmon (sockeye, chinook and coho) and examining their potential for impacting the health and condition of salmon.
DFO actively encourages the use of new research tools to diagnose and study disease and other conditions affecting wild fish. For example, the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative has developed and validated a microfluidics-based microbe monitoring platform that allows for very cost effective and rapid screening of samples for 45 microbes. DFO has and continues to fund or co-fund research programs that use other types of advanced genomic techniques to examine host-pathogen/parasite interactions, salmon condition and performance and microbe genetic diversity. These programs are conducted in collaboration with national and international experts from universities and other research organizations
Thanks for sticking on topic, Rico. That's DFO official response after the communications branch had a go at it. But let's look at it, then:
The defense and promotion of aquaculture by DFO still exists (R3)- and is not replaced by the British Columbia Aquaculture Regulatory Program (BCARP) program. The risk assessments (R18&23) also not done.
Yes Mike Foreman did do an IHN only risk assessment - and that has not been implemented into siting criteria, neither.
The latest submission by Stan @ Watershed Watch pretty much proves that R67 also not completed.
Only have 1 year left on this one - or the farms are out:
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.
Ya - it cost a lot, Dave. Keep in mind, however that DFO slurped-up $11M of that total:
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/07/28/cohen-report-into-fraser-river-sockeye-cost-37m/
The nearly CAD 11m in additional costs includes salaries and benefits to federal bureaucrats working full-time to collect and process documents, review policy papers, prepare departmental witnesses for testimony, and communicate internally between federal Fisheries Department staff in B.C. and Ottawa, according to documentation provided by Fisheries Minister Gail Shea.
Those whom wish to browse the Cohen Commission reports, testimonies, exhibits and documents can now find it at:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/003/008/09.../cohen/cohen_commission/LOCALHOS/EN/INDEX.HTM
Here's Cohen exact words and extended commentary on DFO and the FF issue are below:
p.92-93 https://www.regulatorwatch.com/wp-c...COMMISSION-FINAL-REPORT-2012-EXEC-SUMMARY.pdf
One can see where there is outstanding issues in bold.
"Minimizing risks and uncertainty
The evidence suggests that waste and chemical discharges from salmon farms are unlikely to have any population-level effect on Fraser River sockeye. I reached the same conclusion about Atlantic salmon escapes from fish farms. However, the state of scientific research about sockeye–fish farm interactions is not sufficiently developed to rule out diseases and pathogens on salmon farms as contributing to the decline of Fraser River sockeye and posing future risks. Fraser River sockeye face some likelihood of harm from disease and pathogens on salmon farms. However, I cannot quantify the likelihood of harm occurring. That requires further study.
Salmon farms along the sockeye migration route in the Discovery Islands have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases which can have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye. Disease can cause significant population declines, and, in some situations – for example, if a disease were to wipe out a vulnerable stock of Fraser River sockeye – such effects could be irreversible. I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed by salmon farms to Fraser River sockeye salmon is serious or irreversible.
DFO’s Wild Salmon Policy indicates that the risk to wild stocks from salmon farming is mitigated through measures such as improved cage structure, proper farm siting, and fish health management plans (FHMPs). Farm siting holds the potential to mitigate risk to Fraser River sockeye, but current siting criteria do not explicitly require consideration of Fraser River sockeye migration routes. When siting salmon farms, DFO should explicitly consider proximity to migrating Fraser River sockeye, and it should approach farm siting with the goal of the Wild Salmon Policy in mind. DFO should revisit siting decisions as more information about the impact of salmon farms on Fraser River sockeye becomes available.
The management practices applied within net cages, as set out in the FHMPs, are intended to reduce the risk to wild fish as much as possible. However, the evidence before me indicates several plausible mechanisms for harm as well as many knowledge gaps. DFO has not yet completed research into the effects of diseases and pathogens from fish farms on Fraser River sockeye. As a result, significant scientific uncertainty remains around the effect of salmon farms on Fraser River sockeye salmon.
Mitigation measures should not be delayed in the absence of scientific certainty. Precautionary measures should focus on filling the knowledge gaps and enabling DFO to adapt mitigation measures to new scientific information. It is appropriate to take measures to prevent any risk of serious harm from increasing. For that reason, I recommend that there should be no increase to net-pen salmon farm production in the Discovery Islands until September 30, 2020. I have chosen that date because DFO should by then be able to adequately assess the likelihood of net-pen salmon farms causing serious harm to Fraser River sock-eye. If, by that date, DFO cannot confidently say the risk of serious harm is minimal, it should then prohibit all net-pen salmon farms from operating in the Discovery Islands. If DFO is satisfied before September 30, 2020, that the risk is more than minimal, it should order a stop to net-pen salmon farming at that earlier date."
The defense and promotion of aquaculture by DFO still exists (R3)- and is not replaced by the British Columbia Aquaculture Regulatory Program (BCARP) program. The risk assessments (R18&23) also not done.
Yes Mike Foreman did do an IHN only risk assessment - and that has not been implemented into siting criteria, neither.
The latest submission by Stan @ Watershed Watch pretty much proves that R67 also not completed.
Only have 1 year left on this one - or the farms are out:
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.
Ya - it cost a lot, Dave. Keep in mind, however that DFO slurped-up $11M of that total:
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/07/28/cohen-report-into-fraser-river-sockeye-cost-37m/
The nearly CAD 11m in additional costs includes salaries and benefits to federal bureaucrats working full-time to collect and process documents, review policy papers, prepare departmental witnesses for testimony, and communicate internally between federal Fisheries Department staff in B.C. and Ottawa, according to documentation provided by Fisheries Minister Gail Shea.
Those whom wish to browse the Cohen Commission reports, testimonies, exhibits and documents can now find it at:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/003/008/09.../cohen/cohen_commission/LOCALHOS/EN/INDEX.HTM
Here's Cohen exact words and extended commentary on DFO and the FF issue are below:
p.92-93 https://www.regulatorwatch.com/wp-c...COMMISSION-FINAL-REPORT-2012-EXEC-SUMMARY.pdf
One can see where there is outstanding issues in bold.
"Minimizing risks and uncertainty
The evidence suggests that waste and chemical discharges from salmon farms are unlikely to have any population-level effect on Fraser River sockeye. I reached the same conclusion about Atlantic salmon escapes from fish farms. However, the state of scientific research about sockeye–fish farm interactions is not sufficiently developed to rule out diseases and pathogens on salmon farms as contributing to the decline of Fraser River sockeye and posing future risks. Fraser River sockeye face some likelihood of harm from disease and pathogens on salmon farms. However, I cannot quantify the likelihood of harm occurring. That requires further study.
Salmon farms along the sockeye migration route in the Discovery Islands have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases which can have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye. Disease can cause significant population declines, and, in some situations – for example, if a disease were to wipe out a vulnerable stock of Fraser River sockeye – such effects could be irreversible. I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed by salmon farms to Fraser River sockeye salmon is serious or irreversible.
DFO’s Wild Salmon Policy indicates that the risk to wild stocks from salmon farming is mitigated through measures such as improved cage structure, proper farm siting, and fish health management plans (FHMPs). Farm siting holds the potential to mitigate risk to Fraser River sockeye, but current siting criteria do not explicitly require consideration of Fraser River sockeye migration routes. When siting salmon farms, DFO should explicitly consider proximity to migrating Fraser River sockeye, and it should approach farm siting with the goal of the Wild Salmon Policy in mind. DFO should revisit siting decisions as more information about the impact of salmon farms on Fraser River sockeye becomes available.
The management practices applied within net cages, as set out in the FHMPs, are intended to reduce the risk to wild fish as much as possible. However, the evidence before me indicates several plausible mechanisms for harm as well as many knowledge gaps. DFO has not yet completed research into the effects of diseases and pathogens from fish farms on Fraser River sockeye. As a result, significant scientific uncertainty remains around the effect of salmon farms on Fraser River sockeye salmon.
Mitigation measures should not be delayed in the absence of scientific certainty. Precautionary measures should focus on filling the knowledge gaps and enabling DFO to adapt mitigation measures to new scientific information. It is appropriate to take measures to prevent any risk of serious harm from increasing. For that reason, I recommend that there should be no increase to net-pen salmon farm production in the Discovery Islands until September 30, 2020. I have chosen that date because DFO should by then be able to adequately assess the likelihood of net-pen salmon farms causing serious harm to Fraser River sock-eye. If, by that date, DFO cannot confidently say the risk of serious harm is minimal, it should then prohibit all net-pen salmon farms from operating in the Discovery Islands. If DFO is satisfied before September 30, 2020, that the risk is more than minimal, it should order a stop to net-pen salmon farming at that earlier date."
Last edited:
ChinookExerciser
Active Member
Peer Review concludes Piscine Orthoreovirus transfer from Atlantic salmon farms poses minimal risk to wild Fraser River sockeye
From: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
News release
February 7, 2019
Vancouver, British Columbia
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
From January 28-30, 2019, Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) conducted a meeting to review scientific evidence and to provide science advice on the risk to Fraser River sockeye salmon due to Piscine Orthoreovirus (PRV) transfer from Atlantic salmon farms located in the Discovery Islands area, British Columbia. This peer-review process is a recommendation of the Cohen Commission.
The scientific experts who peer reviewed the data and risk assessment reached a consensus that the risk to Fraser River sockeye salmon due to PRV is minimal. This is consistent with the conclusion of a 2015 CSAS report.
The assessment was conducted based on the latest Canadian and international data including results from the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative.
As there are still some knowledge gaps in our understanding of this virus, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to be vigilant, and support further scientific research on PRV. It will also rely on domestic and international experts in this field, and the peer review process, to obtain the best science available to inform evidence-based decisions on the management and regulation of Canada’s aquaculture sector.
The PRV risk assessment represents the sixth in the series of ten risk assessments on pathogen transfer from farmed Atlantic salmon to Fraser River sockeye salmon. The assessment follows the standard CSAS process, which is a robust and transparent peer-review procedure that ensures meeting conclusions and final scientific advice are reached by expert consensus.
A full report on the peer-review findings will be published on the CSAS website in late spring 2019 after final review by the peer-review participants.
Quick facts
- The peer review meeting was held in Vancouver from January 28-30, 2019
- The 33 peer-review participants, of which 15 were Fisheries and Oceans Canada employees, also included domestic and international experts including from environmental non-governmental organizations, Indigenous groups, academia, the aquaculture industry, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture.
- This risk assessment supports Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s role in the management of aquaculture in British Columbia and aligns with recommendations in the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, including recommendations 18 and 19 on risks to wild fish populations related to pathogen transfers from fish farms and other fish health-related recommendations.
- This is consistent with Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s statement of additional measures announced in 2018 to ensure the environmental sustainability of finfish aquaculture, including a new study on the alternative technologies for aquaculture, moving towards an area-based approach to aquaculture management, developing a framework for aquaculture risk management based on the precautionary approach and creating a single comprehensive set of regulations: the General Aquaculture Regulations.
ChinookExerciser
Active Member
You mean their election promise to move fish farms to land by 2025?
did you miss the election?
Here's Mike's (et al.) paper on IHN:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130951
and one can see that IHN infectivity (like other vectors) travels for 10s of km - where siting criteria ignores this reality:
and here's 2 more relevant risk-based models that DFO hasn't yet acknowledged should be used for siting criteria:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2018.00269/full?report=reader
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0203
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130951
and one can see that IHN infectivity (like other vectors) travels for 10s of km - where siting criteria ignores this reality:
and here's 2 more relevant risk-based models that DFO hasn't yet acknowledged should be used for siting criteria:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2018.00269/full?report=reader
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0203
ChinookExerciser
Active Member
How do you know they have not? do you review DFO's work? I think it's pretty ignorant to say DFO science has ignored that report.
ChinookExerciser
Active Member
Why are we focusing on IHN and ISAV. When Alexandra Morton has clearly stated that PRV is the issue on the pacific coast?
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Awe. You guys beat me to it. Anyways ya. Moving the goal post again. Thanks for providing that for me. Appreciated.
Maybe re-read post #481, Rico - if you want insights in PRv risk assessment and whom "some dude named stan" is. Maybe read the supporting info @:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00114/full
https://watershed-watch.org/CoI_concerns_with_Zhang_et_al_2019.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/A-2019-00127-DSP-FINAL.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/Email_to_UBC_re_Zhang_et_al_2019.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/Scientific_Reports_Polinski_et_al_2019.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/emails_between_DFO_scientist_re_media_responses_on_studies.pdf
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00114/full
https://watershed-watch.org/CoI_concerns_with_Zhang_et_al_2019.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/A-2019-00127-DSP-FINAL.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/Email_to_UBC_re_Zhang_et_al_2019.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/Scientific_Reports_Polinski_et_al_2019.pdf
https://watershed-watch.org/emails_between_DFO_scientist_re_media_responses_on_studies.pdf
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
it appears that Stan is moving the goalposts as well. More than willing to promote science from the same sources yet when science goes against the narrative it’s funding is suddenly inappropriate.
I love all the fish farmers congregating here, its like a little kids party. Liking each others post and ya ya what he said.
How do I know?
Because when the new guys link Seawest as their source, that's how I know. I can see Fabian scrambling 'here's another one guys! what should I write next?'
All the arguments mean nothing. Marine Harvest (Mowi) has acknowledged the damage the industry does through disease, sea lice etc. They know they are killing wild salmon and they know their salmon are eating herring and all kinds of other fish that enter their pens. The question is not a question anymore, its fact. Time to move on..
How do I know?
Because when the new guys link Seawest as their source, that's how I know. I can see Fabian scrambling 'here's another one guys! what should I write next?'
All the arguments mean nothing. Marine Harvest (Mowi) has acknowledged the damage the industry does through disease, sea lice etc. They know they are killing wild salmon and they know their salmon are eating herring and all kinds of other fish that enter their pens. The question is not a question anymore, its fact. Time to move on..
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
How come you are questioning new people’s backgrounds without question others like AA.
If you have read AA post your average fishermen would not be posting what he or she does.
Yet you never question it just new members opinions that you don’t agree with.
Similar threads
