Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

Thanks BN for your photos. Admitting that it is difficult to accurately count lice from a photo - but in general - it appears that these fish are reasonably free of lice burdens - and importantly - the motile, adult phases. I am unsure whether those pics represent an average or expected lice loads across time and space. The time of year can be important, as well as history of lice treatments - as well as local oceanographic/estuarine conditions.

The lice limit for treatment on cultured fish is dictated within the Conditions of Licence (CoLs), and in the last few years - the industry has responded with numerous well boat treatments of H2O2 instead of Slice - which has become ineffective due to a build up of resistance by the lice.

IF today the treatments have now facilitated a decrease in lice loads on wild, outmigrating smolts - then that is to me cause for acknowledgement of success in regulating the industry. I am pleased we are past the denials by industry pundits that the open net-pen industry operations affect the health and viability of adjacent wild stocks - that precluded effective lice treatment in the past.

And to add to GFs post - in commercial fisheries Conditions of Licence - 3rd party validators are common, as other other checks and balances (hailing-out, etc.) - that are missing from the finfish aquaculture CoLs.

I think dependable, unbiased monitoring and enforcement is always necessary in everything fisheries - as is independent research - including research on fish disease outbreaks that is still hidden and protected by DFO/CFIA.
 
agentaqua said:
3rd party validators are common, as other other checks and balances (hailing-out, etc.) - that are missing from the finfish aquaculture CoLs.
Click to expand...

They are not third party my understanding is they are paid for buy the commercial industry.
 
Yes - the commercial fishermen pays (in this case) Archipelago for those services at a cost of ~$10K per 20,000lbs for cameras, video analysis, dockside monitors, etc. In some fisheries they have onboard observers instead of cameras. The commercial fishermen cannot tell Archipelago what to do - it is stipulated by DFO within their licences and those conditions within - if one wishes to prosecute any fisheries/fishing trips. The fishermen get to pay the fees incurred if they want to fish. And any outstanding and unresolved infractions terminate the ability to hail out for the next fishing trip until they are resolved.

AGAIN - totally unlike the current CoL for the net-cage industry - even tho they are regulated by the same Act and have been determined to be a "fishery" by the courts.
 
agentaqua said:
Yes - the commercial fishermen pays (in this case) Archipelago for those services at a cost of ~$10K per 20,000lbs for cameras, video analysis, dockside monitors, etc. In some fisheries they have onboard observers instead of cameras. The commercial fishermen cannot tell Archipelago what to do - it is stipulated by DFO within their licences and those conditions within - if one wishes to prosecute any fisheries/fishing trips. The fishermen get to pay the fees incurred if they want to fish. And any outstanding and unresolved infractions terminate the ability to hail out for the next fishing trip until they are resolved.
Click to expand...

but if there is no fishery or the fishery has to much by catch and gets shut down then the third party validators don't get paid correct?

There is also been some concerns with area D gillnetters not doing this correct?
 
Last edited:
If 3rd party validators work - they get paid - by someone. Regardless of the quantity of fish landed. However, the more fish one has - the longer it takes to offload, and subsequently it works out to roughly the amount one catches. When a boat nears either it's capacity to carry fish - or nears it's TAC - it hails out and the 3rd party validators are called in to meet the boat when it arrives at the processor/plant/dock for dockside monitoring.

It is admittedly complicated - all the commercial fisheries: groundfish, salmon, dive fisheries, etc - and different sectors within those fisheries (e.g. Area D gillnet, Area F troll, etc.) and how they are individually regulated and what 3rd party requirements they must follow and whether or not they have an area/sector TAC or an individual TAC - or they are regulated (as in the case of the prawn fishery) by a spawner index or another metric used as a management trigger. Onboard observers and/or cameras - depends on the fishery - as well as the coverage.

There are extremely regulated fisheries - and ones less so within that mix. Area D is - as you pointed is one of the "less-so" fisheries - as these are small boats with limited and short openings that are based on an area/sector TAC verses an individual TAC/quota. They "hail in" w/o cameras or onboard observers but there is dockside observers @ the dock, and further checks within the plants themselves.

In this case - the dockside buyer sometimes pays the monitors - but those costs come off of the profits from the sales to the fishermen.

In any event - there are huge differences in how CoLs are applied to the open net-pen industry - and they have blocked all attempts to have 3rd party monitoring so far as CoL - unless that's recently changed.
 
agentaqua said:
n any event - there are huge differences in how CoLs are applied to the open net-pen industry - and they have blocked all attempts to have 3rd party monitoring so far as CoL - unless that's recently changed.
Click to expand...

but they have paid for third party testing that you have took exception with
 
I don't think I ever took exception to 3rd party (this term needs refinement & discussion) data unto itself - but rather how the audits by DFO Science did not agree with the numbers self-reported reported by the industry:

I think the term "3rd party" needs a bit more refinement, as well.

In many things - esp. in actual bone-fide Environmental Assessments - proponents hire a "3rd party" to generate the (environmental) data that usually that usually the industry lacks experience/capacity in doing as far as their application for a tenure or permit.

THEN (this is the important part) those data/reports are vetted thru a review process and intervenors (affected parties) get a chance to critique those data and assumptions and the regulator/referee gets to determine next steps if there are issues - generally asking for further testing and/or data. The process is not perfect and there are some critiques there as well.

BUT.. GUESS WHAT?

This industry has successfully avoided this CEAA (now IAA) process throughout most of it's permitted tenure through the Province. Avoided sticky points like scoping - determining geographic boundaries of impacts. Also avoided real-time public reporting of fish disease outbreaks with geographic coordinates as well, while we are at it.

And as I mentioned - the commercial fishing industry does not hire "3rd party" as this open net-cage industry does now, neither. They cannot dictate to the consultant what to do and how to do it. It is not an "option". DFO dictates to the contractor what to do instead thru CoLs and other regulatory mechanisms. The fisherman gets stuck with the bill, only.
 
agentaqua said:
And as I mentioned - the commercial fishing industry does not hire "3rd party" as this open net-cage industry does now, neither. They cannot dictate to the consultant what to do and how to do it. It is not an "option". DFO dictates to the contractor what to do instead thru CoLs and other regulatory mechanisms. The fisherman gets stuck with the bill, only.
Click to expand...

hasn't there been multiple reports posted on this site from third party observers disputing this.

The narwhal too pretty much gospel in anti fish farm PR.

thenarwhal.ca

‘You’re out there alone’: whistleblowers say workplace abuse hides true impacts of B.C.’s trawl fishery | The Narwhal

A months-long investigation by The Narwhal, including interviews with 11 current or former at-sea observers, reveals a culture of intimidation and harassment that has resulted in the vast and systematic under-reporting of deep-sea fish harvested from B.C.’s coastal waters
thenarwhal.ca thenarwhal.ca
 
wildmanyeah said:
hasn't there been multiple reports posted on this site from third party observers disputing this.

The narwhal too pretty much gospel in anti fish farm PR.

thenarwhal.ca

‘You’re out there alone’: whistleblowers say workplace abuse hides true impacts of B.C.’s trawl fishery | The Narwhal

A months-long investigation by The Narwhal, including interviews with 11 current or former at-sea observers, reveals a culture of intimidation and harassment that has resulted in the vast and systematic under-reporting of deep-sea fish harvested from B.C.’s coastal waters
thenarwhal.ca thenarwhal.ca
Click to expand...
They never have this kind of a problem in Gold Mines. I guess it probably comes down to how honest they want to keep things.
 
I also wanted to acknowledge WMY's point about "3rd party" monitoring in that I don't unto itself (in isolation) see it an a panacea for all that is wrong with all fisheries - but rather that term "3rd party" can mean different things and refer to different processes.

In the case of commercial fisheries - there is limited if any incentive for a 3rd party dockside human monitor to lie - as they get paid by their company no matter what. That 3rd party monitor contractor gets paid no matter what, and those directions as to what to do and when/how is stipulated by DFO for that fishery. The one whom gets the bill only has a decision as to whether they want to go fishing or not.

In the case of an environmental assessment - I would argue - that there is incentive for a 3rd party contractor to lie - as whether their client gets their permit/tenure is what it is all about. BUT.. there are some other checks balances in that process (referees, intervenors, etc.) to review those generated data. The issue where it gets slippery (IMHO) in an assessment is when the boundaries (scoping) is set. That happens at the earliest stages, and things have not always been open and transparent in that process, historically. And the open net-cage industry has avoided this process.

In the case of open net-pen operations - they use 3rd party monitoring for sea lice levels at time - and I would argue the issues are similar to an environmental assessment process (w/o any similar checks/balances) in that there is a vested interest in getting hired again at the discretion of the client ("...Consequently, [LOWERED] industry sea-louse counts are less likely to trigger costly but mandated delousing treatments intended to avoid sea-louse epidemics in wild juvenile salmon...") - rather than have DFO dictate whom the monitor is and what the monitor does irrespective of reported results - like commercial fishing CoLs.

But maybe my interpretation is wrong. I'm open for any and all other insights.
 
Last edited:
And on the West Coast

Cermaq to pay $500K fine following diesel spill near Vancouver Island​

after a mishap at one of its facilities resulted in hundreds of litres of diesel spilling into waters east of Vancouver Island.
 
All federal salmon farm licenses in British Columbia will expire in 2022. The government could decide that in order to protect wild salmon, these licenses will not be renewed. Polling indicates that British Columbians are well aware of what is happening to wild salmon, and why. Indeed, 75% of BC residents support the government mandate to transition away from open-net pen salmon aquaculture.

Get the whole story on this a more on this site

WinterNews 1a (clayoquotaction.org)
 
agentaqua said:
I also wanted to acknowledge WMY's point about "3rd party" monitoring in that I don't unto itself (in isolation) see it an a panacea for all that is wrong with all fisheries - but rather that term "3rd party" can mean different things and refer to different processes.

In the case of commercial fisheries - there is limited if any incentive for a 3rd party dockside human monitor to lie - as they get paid by their company no matter what. That 3rd party monitor contractor gets paid no matter what, and those directions as to what to do and when/how is stipulated by DFO for that fishery. The one whom gets the bill only has a decision as to whether they want to go fishing or not.

In the case of an environmental assessment - I would argue - that there is incentive for a 3rd party contractor to lie - as whether their client gets their permit/tenure is what it is all about. BUT.. there are some other checks balances in that process (referees, intervenors, etc.) to review those generated data. The issue where it gets slippery (IMHO) in an assessment is when the boundaries (scoping) is set. That happens at the earliest stages, and things have not always been open and transparent in that process, historically. And the open net-cage industry has avoided this process.

In the case of open net-pen operations - they use 3rd party monitoring for sea lice levels at time - and I would argue the issues are similar to an environmental assessment process (w/o any similar checks/balances) in that there is a vested interest in getting hired again at the discretion of the client ("...Consequently, [LOWERED] industry sea-louse counts are less likely to trigger costly but mandated delousing treatments intended to avoid sea-louse epidemics in wild juvenile salmon...") - rather than have DFO dictate whom the monitor is and what the monitor does irrespective of reported results - like commercial fishing CoLs.

But maybe my interpretation is wrong. I'm open for any and all other insights.
Click to expand...


You can not really believe there's "little to NO incentive" for a 3rd party observer at a commercial off load to look the other way for a minute all because they are getting a paycheck anyways?
Its called cash$$$ when they leave the dock
 
Ya - the fishermen get $ - not the observers. And the observer serves a number of boats concurrently across an opening. The observers are not committed to any particular fisher. And there are numerous other personnel offloading a boat during an opening, as well - usually employed by the plant. If there are any shenanigans it isn't typically from the observer - but rather in the plant after the fish are landed.

In fact there is often a relationship of some level of antagonism towards the observers as some fishers call the observers "parasites". The only tool the fisher really has against the observer is intimidation rather than pay-offs. Sometimes that happens at sea away from other witnesses in those fisheries that have onboard observers verses cameras, but not usually dockside.

And if commercial fishers are in violation of the CoL they can't hail-out to another trip until those conditions are met. So if the observer reports violations, the fisher can't go out fishing again, and may be brought-up on charges, even by DFO C&P. I think those unfamiliar with the commercial CoL and the monitoring programs don't understand these issues. And as stated above in post #1945 - there is a spectrum of intensities and checks and balances across different fisheries:

Commercial Fishery Requirements

Commercial Fishery Requirements
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

www.archipelago.ca

Managing BC’s Groundfish Hook and Line / Trap Catch Monitoring Program - Archipelago

To help ensure the long-term sustainability of British Columbia’s groundfish fishery, Fisheries and Oceans Canada worked with Archipelago Marine Research
www.archipelago.ca

I'm not suggesting everything is rosy all the time, neither - but what's the alternative? Instead use an online reporting tool like the recreational fishery with no dockside observers, no cameras? That'd be considerably cheaper. Is that what you are suggesting, SF? What is your personal experience with Archipelago and the monitoring programs - if you don't mind sharing?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
The Salmon Skyline - A good read.
Replies
0
Views
492
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
319
RalphH
R
Dogbreath
Tofino Finally Stops Shitting into the Ocean
Replies
1
Views
368
agentaqua
A
Back
Top