Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

2 hard facts about this industry in it's current open net-pen institution:

1/ There isn't a single place on this planet where this industry has operated where wild adjacent salmonids have not been negatively affected through things like sea lice and diseases from this industry. BC, NB, NFLD, Ireland, Scotland, and/or Norway. Not a single exemption. Because, if there was you can be sure that there associated PR industry would be singing their praises high and loud. It'd be plastered in the colour brochures of the BCSFA. Instead they can only offer doubt, shooting the messenger, and trying to change the narrative into something more acceptable like pretending they are like terrestrial farming or that jobs will be "lost" if they can't do things they way they want to.

2/ Every place that has had (at one time) robust adjacent wild salmonids and a concentration of this industry has had to grapple with a tough decision 20-40 years down the road - about what their priorities are: either wild or farmed fish. SW NB, Scotland and Ireland being the premier examples.

And that choice is never honestly presented in the beginning phases of establishing the industry. And that choice is always presented in terms of money - disguised as "local jobs", but not acknowledging the fact that these are in fact large multinationals whose job it is to make as much money as they can for their shareholders by externalizing costs such as free pumping and free sewerage disposal, while killing off their economic competitor (wild salmon). Where their competitor has already been largely exterminated (wild Atlantic salmon) it makes more "economic" sense to keep doing business as usual - the cheapest way possible (open net-pens verses closed containment).

No other narratives are allowed in this PR war, as far as the industry is concerned. Shoot any messenger with any other narrative that pops their head up before it catches on. Hire Sea West "NEWS" PR firm and call it "NEWS" instead of the PR smear campaign it is to baffle and confuse any other attempts to honestly put other narratives out there. That's how this industry has operated for years.

No mention of the fact that even at these reduced levels of abundance - there are ~1000 times more wild Pacific salmon than Atlantic salmon in the Atlantic. That the economic impact that these multinational corporations wish us to bear is likely 1000 times worse than this Faustian bargain we have unfortunately been saddled with did not start with the honest admittal from the industry pundits as to where our communities would end up in 20-40 years.

And here we are. That is the sad tale. Time to get back to making decisions on the long term health and viability of our communities based on something other than the PR lies from the industry and their back room incesteous relationship with the top end of our regulators - DFO.
 
If FF boosters/pundits choose to tell themselves that requiring accountability is instead being hated - then what does that tell you about their institutionalized mindset, let alone their seriousness about being responsive, responsible and trustworthy? No other industry when asked to go thru an environmental assessment (which this industry has avoided) whines about people hating them instead. They put on their big boy pants and do as required rather than demonstrating such a lack of maturity and irresponsibility.
 
SpringFever552 said:
Open net, and try and tell a fn they cant have them...not going to happen
Click to expand...
Sure can happen. Just like a FN can't run a refinery and put lead in the gas, or clear cut the forest right over the streams and dam them up with logging debris, or dump mine hazardous mine tailings into drinking water sources, they can't run a restaurant and continue to sell unsafe food, etc, etc,. The laws and regulations in place do not just apply and exist for non FN's. If the powers that be choose not enforce these laws and regs. consistently against anyone - including FN's, then we the people need to take the govt. to task for this.

Yes FN's are moving to semi autonomous nationhood, they do have to be consulted, they do have some special economic supports now, but they cannot blatantly ignore laws and regulations without any consequences. They are no allowed, nor will the majority of citizens allow them to be fully exempt for the laws of the land. They do have unique status but they do not have the license to do whatever the hell they want with impunity. There will always be consequences one way or another.

Second, and more relevant, FN's are just as vulnerable to public and market pressures as non FN businesses and if the scientific and public opinion (and push back from other FN's) is against net pen fish farms and their negative environmental impacts, then they too will need to move operations on to land. Common sense.
 
Last edited:
Another good post, WitW.

Besides s. 35 of the Constitution Act - I think where the rubber hits the road in this process from now on is UNDRIP. The province fairly recently adopted it - the feds will be following suit soon. Key words: "prior, informed consent".

That means that any industry can't blatantly do what they want anymore w/o at least pretending to engage FNs in their territories (like what some of the feds do). It is currently in a state of flux as to where the onus, drive and responsibility for that communication piece lies anymore - the proponent or the Crown reps. Legally - it's the Crown reps - but functionally and in regards to drive and capacity - the proponents are stepping-up more due to delays due to the lack of capacity of the Crown reps.

And most recently wrt tenures - the Province states that they will not be issuing any more tenures without that "prior, informed consent" and UNDRIP being satisfied. That on it's own could be a game-changer for this and other industries since this industry operates by leasing Crown Land as tenures to operate.

Politicians are still politicians no matter the colour of their ties, or their party affiliations - that won't change. As humans - we won't get rid of corruption, collusion nor lies neither.

But if everything is above board and on the table - we do stand a change of mitigating it somewhat.

And FNs do care about the future, which is the reason they had extensive hereditary systems that functioned for thousands of years that mitigated the worst of resource depletion - hard to argue against that reality. The current Chief and Council governance is an Indian Act construct - and FNs had no say in the development and implementation of the same Act; and C&C is supposed to only regulate activities on reserve. But since many if not most hereditary systems (along with language, culture and connection) were systematically dismantled by the imposed colonial governments - that is what many FNs are left with today. Hard to argue against that reality, as well. So the role of C&C has since expanded to include governance over the whole of a traditional territory.

But in a few places, those systems withstood the onslaught of colonization, and many FNs are in the process of redeveloping and re-establishing those systems. It's a changing dynamic. That learning curve of instituting governance mechanisms and transitioning from C&C to hereditary systems is not a perfect process and mistakes will be learned.

But a more ground-up consensus-based governance system is supposed to be at the core of what we claim democracy is. I welcome the change as the current system encourages lying, mistrust and corruption. I also understand some are afraid of change. Some are resistant to it - particularly the Aquaculture Branch of DFO.

In any event - that's where we are headed - and FNs aren't going away. We are all (aboriginal and non-aboriginal) living through the dying days of colonization and making history... not just one group.
 
Last edited:
agentaqua said:
We are all (aboriginal and non-aboriginal) living through the dying days of colonization and making history... not just one group.
Click to expand...

if you have been paying attention to what first nations have been saying about reconciliation then you would know that your statement is simple untrue. There is no dying days of colonization or simple working though it, there is no moving past reconciliation its embracing the relationships. Its spiritual, a sense of well being and acceptings it will be with everyone always. There is no "fixing it, or moving past it". There is no righting the wrongs. Your children's, childrens will be dealing with it.

Unless you are first nations AA you can't even conceptualize it

I don't pretend to understand it and neither should you
 
Last edited:
I never said I thought it was going to be "simple", WMY. Nor did I state that we should all just "move past reconciliation while its embracing the relationships". Those are you words - not mine.

And conceptualizing what the word "reconciliation" looks like now or will look like in another 100 years is also something I never pretended to have a definitive vision of. Again - your words. I don't think any of us knows how this will play out.

I did share my understanding of the legal and regulatory end of things which I stay current on. Particularly in the end of aquaculture management and regulation. Go back and reread my post. You can own your own words.
 
Not sure what point you are trying to make, WMY. I never put a timelime on what date we can officially call colonization in Canada ending. Maybe you can provide that quote. In my opinion, we have had ~450 years of mostly European (esp. Basque, French, English, Scotch & Irish) colonization starting on the East Coast, and more like 150-200 years on the West Coast (Russian, Spanish, and English). We have seen much change after the repatriation of the Constitution Act 1982, and now more change wrt FN involvement in industry and economic generation within their territories is coming with UNDRIP. I think we are sliding off the focus of this thread...
 
SpringFever552 said:
So now you all believe there should be 1 law for everyone...
Glad we agree on 1 thing
Click to expand...
No. FN rights are so entrenched it is pretty much impossible to move towards a "one law for one people" concept. It's the same throughout North America, it's not just in BC. It seems to be the most contentious in PNW and to some extent in the Maritimes as FN access to fish resources gains an increasing economic benefit content and less a subsistence focus. However the law on both sides of the border is going in that direction not the other way and there's no prospect to change it in the foreseeable future.
 
^^^^
I was being my sarcastic self ..in a reply to witw, he said ..and aa agreed
WitW Quote
"The laws and regulations in place do not just apply and exist for non FN's. If the powers that be choose not enforce these laws and regs. consistently against anyone - including FN's, then we the people need to take the govt. to task for this."


Back to op...
Aquaculture industry IS improving, as is oil and gas, logging industry ect ect ect
 
Regarding WITW statement then - given the semi-autonomous nature of First Nations and the obvious sympathy for our judiciary has for them, the Federal Government would have to establish some pretty tight laws or regulations to keep FNs that wished to, from establishing open net fish farming operations (BTW I wouldn't call these things farms, they are more akin to feedlots). They would have to be prepared to explain to a judge why such fish feedlots are illegal when oyster and clam leases are not. These after all take over adjacent and even surrounding beaches. Our native oyster was long ago all but extirpated by Japanese oyster farming in the SOG/SS.

Personally I don't go much with the argument we are living in the tail end of the colonialism, at least in BC and North America. Rather I see it as living with the social, cultural and legal legacy of it and slavery, which by some arguments wasn't eradicated from North America until well after the end of the last century (share cropping sort of petered out in mid 1900s). We didn't make FNs full citizens in Canada until the 1960s & the residential school system continued a couple decades later. Others would say legacy or actual, there is no difference.
 
SpringFever552 said:
^^^^
I was being my sarcastic self ..in a reply to witw, he said ..and aa agreed
WitW Quote
"The laws and regulations in place do not just apply and exist for non FN's. If the powers that be choose not enforce these laws and regs. consistently against anyone - including FN's, then we the people need to take the govt. to task for this."


Back to op...
Aquaculture industry IS improving, as is oil and gas, logging industry ect ect ect
Click to expand...
Your last statement is debatable to say the least as basically only those that are in the industry or support it would agree. The vast bulk of independent and scientific research and opinion would disagree that the net pen feedlot industry is improving and IF it is improving is to not improving to the point that it outweighs its negative environmental impacts.

That is why the industry sees that the only long term future for it is on land based farms where it's environmental impacts can be better managed. Trying to defend net pen fish farms is like trying to defend the benefits of leaded gasoline - the FF industry has to and is going to move on to be more environmentally sustainable. Public opinion and market forces will leave it no other choice.
 
Last edited:
RalphH said:
Regarding WITW statement then - given the semi-autonomous nature of First Nations and the obvious sympathy for our judiciary has for them, the Federal Government would have to establish some pretty tight laws or regulations to keep FNs that wished to, from establishing open net fish farming operations (BTW I wouldn't call these things farms, they are more akin to feedlots). They would have to be prepared to explain to a judge why such fish feedlots are illegal when oyster and clam leases are not. These after all take over adjacent and even surrounding beaches. Our native oyster was long ago all but extirpated by Japanese oyster farming in the SOG/SS.

Personally I don't go much with the argument we are living in the tail end of the colonialism, at least in BC and North America. Rather I see it as living with the social, cultural and legal legacy of it and slavery, which by some arguments wasn't eradicated from North America until well after the end of the last century (share cropping sort of petered out in mid 1900s). We didn't make FNs full citizens in Canada until the 1960s & the residential school system continued a couple decades later. Others would say legacy or actual, there is no difference.
Click to expand...
I will repeat this as this is what is more relevant argument as to why FN's will most likely not stay in net pen salmon feedlots in the long term.
Second, and more relevant, FN's are just as vulnerable to public and market pressures as non FN businesses and if the scientific and public opinion (and push back from other FN's) is against net pen fish farms and their negative environmental impacts, then they too will need to move operations on to land. Common sense.
Click to expand...
 
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
447
agentaqua
A
Back
Top