Aquaculture; improving????

[ship happens]

You know what Canada needs? The removal of net pen fish farms, because the science is proven that it's an environmental complete disaster and there is no way to solve that except for putting them on land.

That means that first nations will have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us when it comes to business licences and waterlot leases.

I can't see myself feeling sorry for the corporations that will need to pay rent, hydro and fortis bills. Welcome to society

 

[wildmanyeah]

You know what Canada needs? The removal of net pen fish farms, because the science is proven that it's an environmental complete disaster and there is no way to solve that except for putting them on land.

That means that first nations will have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us when it comes to business licences and waterlot leases.

I just listened to a two hour pod cast that just said urban sprawl in the lowermainland has been a complete environmental disaster for Fraser river salmon.

 

[ship happens]

I just listened to a two hour pod cast that just said urban sprawl in the lowermainland has been a complete environmental disaster for Fraser river salmon.

Well shoot. I'd say you don't need to listen to a 2 hour podcast to know that that's 100 percent true lol

Someone do a chemical and biological sample of the drainage from the streets of Vancouver lol. Bet it's 50 percent green epoxy paint

 

[terrin]

Perhaps terrin since you seem to be very knowledgeable indigenous affairs you can explain to us what it means to be hereditary chief and their powers are in their community’s. Especially the ones you have referred to above.

Andrew Wadhams, a Ma’amtagila hereditary chief,????????

Brian Wadhams, another hereditary Ma’amtagila chief?????

Oh, you mean the ones that don’t want nothing to do with ocean open net cage fish farms?

 

[agentaqua]

There was a lengthy, detailed conversation on the Ma’amtagila/Tlowitsis issue and the Smith brothers on pages 92-96 of this thread earlier - who have signed documents on behalf of the Ma'a̱mtagila people stating that the Ma'a̱mtagila Territories were signed over to them:

"A Place to Make Things Right" | Watershed Sentinel

Xa’nalas Dakota Smith has been working alongside a team of Ma’amtagila descendants to rebuild a homestead in their unceded territory.

watershedsentinel.ca

Press Releases — Ma'amtagila Nation

www.maamtagila.ca

Those politics aside - there is a difference between site approvals and operations.

I see site approvals as part of where FNs should have input into economic opportunities within their territories. The effects and impacts to wild stocks are NOT contained within the boundaries of that site application tho.

I shouldn't have to inform anyone on this forum that fish swim and water flows - which is why the operations of FFs within marine waters destroys the purposely misleading narrative offered by industry pundits that fish farming is just agriculture - it is NOT. Even with terrestrial agriculture there are buffer zones between wild "cattle" (i.e bison) and domesticated cattle. With FFs there are realistically NO BOUNDARIES.

What happens wrt those wild/cultured stock interactions does affect neighbouring aquatic resources in other FNs territory - a Pandora's box that the regulators/enablers/protectors (DFO Aquaculture Branch) does NOT want opened up. I suspect a court case will be the only way to get DFO to do their job here.

 

[wildmanyeah]

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/environment/bs-md-aquacon-withdraws-salmon-farm-20221014-hp23xmw5kzckhnv7brhp5gbbe4-story.html

Following criticism from the community and environmental groups, the Norwegian aquaculture company behind a massive proposed salmon farm on Maryland’s Eastern Shore has withdrawn its application for a key discharge permit.

The large, $300 million facility planned for Federalsburg was expected to raise 15,000 tons of salmon a year using recirculated water. The facility was planning to discharge 2 million gallons of wastewater into the small creek per day, which environmental groups and scientists worried would fundamentally alter the ecosystem for the sturgeon, an endangered species once thought to have disappeared from the Chesapeake Bay region.

 

[agentaqua]

Aquaculture staff in DFO watered-down the federal promise to remove salmon farms

It appears DFO Aquaculture staff are attempting to move the goal posts of the promise towards an outcome that will keep open net-pens in the water through 2025 and beyond.

watershedwatch.ca

 

[wildmanyeah]

Aquaculture staff in DFO watered-down the federal promise to remove salmon farms

It appears DFO Aquaculture staff are attempting to move the goal posts of the promise towards an outcome that will keep open net-pens in the water through 2025 and beyond.

watershedwatch.ca

Wasn't this a Liberal Political promise not a DFO staff promise, Seems like passing the buck to me, Its like blaming the staff at revenue canada for tax increases.

 

[SpringFever552]

Wasn't this a Liberal Political promise not a DFO staff promise, Seems like passing the buck to me

Aquaculture staff in DFO watered-down the federal promise to remove salmon farms

It appears DFO Aquaculture staff are attempting to move the goal posts of the promise towards an outcome that will keep open net-pens in the water through 2025 and beyond.

watershedwatch.ca

I'll add, what happens when 1 of those 3 at the table doesn't want to "transition" or find whats being proposed is not to their liking
With undrip gov has no power

 

[agentaqua]

Good points, WMY. But it brings up more questions:

who leads whom in DFO? Seems different decisions are being made at different levels - and there are different commitments & follow-up - political or otherwise - dependent upon whom is the decision maker in DFO. Seems to be a vast schism there.

And who really are the decision makers? Whomever is the newest and most naive Minister? Timothy Sargent? David Bevan? Trevor Swerdfager? Kevin Stringer? Sue Farlinger? March Klaver?

Where is the accountability and transparency for whomever is the decision(s) makers?

And what happened to Justice Cohen's recommendations on aquaculture and DFO?

 

[wildmanyeah]

Timothy Sargent is out for a new DM

 

[wildmanyeah]

And what happened to Justice Cohen's recommendations on aquaculture and DFO?

have they not removed them in discovery and brightons?

 

[wildmanyeah]

Where is the accountability and transparency for whomever is the decision(s) makers?

The decision maker is the minister, Look at whales, look at salmon, the packages all go to the minister

You dont think an email has gone out to the minister and asked are we removing fish farms by 2025? of course it has

 

[ship happens]

FN own their land. What they do not own is the tidal zone within their water lot. Everyone knows that. It's owned and managed by the crown. It's simple. Don't give the business licence for the water lot use. Doesn't matter what color skin you are. All Canada has to do is just that. Make the waterlot use not applicable to fin fish open net pens.

#1 The species is not native. Need I say more

#2 the food is not all natural and contain drugs and oils and species of fish meal that are not native to the land

#3 the condensed population of stagnant growing fish allow sealice to flourish in an area. Yes sealice live here natively, however when there is an easy target that has no chance of an escape it blooms unessesarliy.

#4 it's proven over and over again that it creates and manifests disease within our native species that at the same time we are trying to rebuild. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

That's just the tip of the environmental side. Then there is the business side. Brutal. Humans are idiots

 

[wildmanyeah]

FN own their land.

I took a 6 hour first nation course that said they don't. This was one of the things it said most canadians get wrong

 

[ship happens]

I took a 6 hour first nation course that said they don't. This was one of the things it said most canadians get wrong

K well either way Noone owns the water lot. Not them not me, Noone. It's crown land. I know how this works. I also own an upland and lease a water lot and it's not an easy process. The business has to be approved by the municipality for you to complete the application. At that point it's still up to either the port, or the province ( BC land and mines ) for an approval. I understand that there are 10 and 30 year leases on some of these waterlots, however the business licence is still yearly

In simpler terms if the province wants them gone all they have to do is not approve the business licence

 

[wildmanyeah]

K well either way Noone owns the water lot. Not them not me, Noone. It's crown land. I know how this works. I also own an upland and lease a water lot and it's not an easy process. The business has to be approved by the municipality for you to complete the application. At that point it's still up to either the port, or the province ( BC land and mines ) for an approval. I understand that there are 10 and 30 year leases on some of these waterlots, however the business licence is still yearly

In simpler terms if the province wants them gone all they have to do is not approve the business licence

yes the province can choose not to renew the leases, this avenue was pushed for hard. I have not heard about the business licence angle being pushed for before.

 

[ship happens]

yes the province can choose not to renew the leases, this avenue was pushed for hard. I have not heard about the business licence angle being pushed for before.

I'm talking about the business licecnces. Which the province has full control over. The leases (water lots) could be federal I'm not sure about areas up the coast weather they are still managed by the port or not. Either way I'm simply talking about a business licence which have to be renewed every year by every business in BC

The feds have no say in what business is valid for each type of zoning in each municipality. That is up to the muni to decide really.

 

[Salmon Seeker]

Good points, WMY. But it brings up more questions:

whom leads whom in DFO? Seems different decisions are being made at different levels - and there are different commitments & follow-up - political or otherwise - dependent upon whom is the decision maker in DFO. Seems to be a vast schism there.

And whom really are the decision makers? Whomever is the newest and most naive Minister? Timothy Sargent? David Bevan? Trevor Swerdfager? Kevin Stringer? Sue Farlinger? March Klaver?

Where is the accountability and transparency for whomever is the decision(s) makers?

And what happened to Justice Cohen's recommendations on aquaculture and DFO?

https://www.wm.edu/as/wrc/newresources/handouts/who-vs-whom.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

Well, we all know that DFO and industry cooked the books on the risk assessments, WMY - esp the mouthrot and PRv ones. In addition the conflicts of interest that Cohen mentioned DFO was under wrt being regulator and promoter have not been resolved along with the conflicted minor royalty within the upper echelons of the Aquaculture Branch of DFO that came out both in that PRv court case (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-fish-farms-federal-court-judge-ruling-1.6431459) and also when that FF companies took DFO to court as the minor royalty within the Aquaculture Branch allowed the multinational to prepay for their federal Aquaculture licences (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-fish-farms-federal-court-judge-ruling-1.6431459). Some real insights in how the DFO employees subvert their minister's directions in those court cases.

And as you mentioned SH - the water column is federal regulation, while the bottom is claimed by the Province thru the Land Act. The Province is responsible for issuing (or not) a tenure (licence of occupation) for the operation while DFO is responsible for issuing an Aquaculture Licence for those activities. Case Law based on the existing colonial laws/acts (both Provincial & Federal) is a work in progress.

How (sometime in the future) Hereditary Laws and/or UNDRIP intersect with land/water uses for non-aboriginal has not been tested to my knowledge - but at a minimum - any impacts (i.e. "infringements") to FN Rights and Title and aquatic harvesting rights has been ruled on in case law. Under s. 35 of the Constitution Act (where all other Acts generate their authorities) - FN must be consulted and accommodated beforehand any infringements are allowed to happen thru the Crown's actions or inactions.

Impacts to adjacent wild stocks would still be an infringement independent of any land ownership questions - but the answer to that question would direct who (did I get that right SS?) goes to court. And then there is also UNDRIP being rolled into management, as well...