will it ever change? The Vancouver Sun July 8
http://www.canada.com:80/vancouvers....html?id=1111c683-82e5-476d-bfcc-9e8dbe463182
http://www.canada.com:80/vancouvers....html?id=1111c683-82e5-476d-bfcc-9e8dbe463182
fish farm siting criteria & politics
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
G
gimp
Guest
Tainted Water from UVic Fish Lab
On UVic campus, Microtek makes vaccines for fish farms, hatcheries. Pathogens, chemicals, flowed out untreated. First of a three-part special report.
By Andrew MacLeod
Published: July 9, 2008
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/07/09/T...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=140708
TheTyee.ca
During the spring, large volumes of untreated water laced with fish diseases were travelling from a University of Victoria laboratory used by a private company through the city's sewerage system and into the ocean, a situation that caused alarm among some employees.
"This situation is not acceptable since untreated water with pathogens [is] going into the general sewer line instead of being treated by our system," wrote Ralph Scheurle, UVic's manager of animal care services, in a May e-mail to Dino Valeri, the school's manager of capital projects.
The problem was only the latest at the lab used by Microtek Research and Development Ltd., a company that makes vaccines for the fish farming and hatchery industries. A UVic microbiology and biochemistry professor, William Kay, heads the company. Documents obtained by the Tyee trace a history of problems with the lab, and the frustration of the UVic employees who are supposed to make sure the facility follows health and safety rules and regulations.
The ongoing problems raise questions about the relationship the public university has with Microtek, whether it is subsidizing the company or stands to make money from it, and whether it has done enough to make sure the lab runs properly. They are key questions at a time when public institutions are increasingly turning to businesses to look for revenue beyond tuition fees and government grants.
"My understanding is as follows," wrote Scheurle in a May 6 e-mail to seven people, including UVic's director of research services Rachael Scarth and Microtek's vice-president of operations, Steve Carlos. "Under certain conditions the water which leaves the [pathology] labs (Microtek side) can leave the system WITHOUT any water treatment and enter the city sewer system. I concur with Mike [James, aquatic facility manager] that this is MAJOR concern and MUST be dealt with immediately."
Authorities not contacted
Despite the urgency of the e-mail, another document said Scheurle had known about the problem as early as Feb. 27, though he did not respond until reminded on April 24, nearly two months later. Nor does he appear to have acted on the problem until his May 6 e-mails.
At that time, Scheurle said UVic plumbers would add more piping to "increase the height of the overflow pipe" and a Microtek employee would reduce the volume of water going into the overflowing pump. Scheurle would consult an engineer and begin working on a long-term solution.
There is no indication in the documents, however, of any plans to contact the Capital Regional District, Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or any other authority that might be interested in bio-waste entering the CRD sewerage system and the ocean.
Scheurle is quoted in one summary telling facility staff not to contact the CRD. He did not return calls by press time. Nor did several other representatives of both the university and Microtek.
UVic's vice-president of research, Howard Brunt, who returned to the school in April 2007 after four years away, said the Vancouver Island Health Authority was brought in to investigate the problem with the treatment system because there were concerns the water was being re-used on campus for things like irrigation. VIHA's interest ended when it was found the water was not being used on campus and did not pose a public health risk, he said. He said he didn't know whether the CRD, DFO or Environment Canada were contacted once it was discovered the overflow was entering the region's system.
The documents fail to note exactly what diseases would have been in the water that was going into the CRD pipes. The regional government is moving ahead with plans to build an estimated $1.2 billion sewage treatment system -- despite lingering resistance from some vocal opponents, including several UVic professors -- but currently does nothing but run it through a screen before it enters the ocean. Besides fish diseases, the water from the UVic pathology lab likely also contained formalin, a parasite killing solution made from formaldehyde gas and commonly used in aquaculture.
Experiments with sea lice
Microtek is the largest user of the university aquatic facility. In November 2007, Microtek sent the university a list of 12 studies it was doing in the lab on campus. They included tests on tilapia and rainbow trout to study vaccines for several diseases. At other times, records show, the company was studying diseased Atlantic salmon. At least one experiment involved sea lice, a parasite some salmon researchers say likely spreads from fish farms to wild fish.
A DFO media contact said questions about fish viruses being discharged into the ocean should be directed to Environment Canada. An official from that ministry responded by e-mail to general questions about monitoring and enforcement by saying, "more info would be required on the discharge itself. You are going to have to be very specific." She did not respond to a second e-mail by press time.
Trevor Smyth, the supervisor of the CRD's source control program, which aims to prevent toxins and other hazardous waste from entering the system in the first place, said the Sewer Use Bylaw puts the onus on people or institutions to advise the CRD whenever something that shouldn't be there enters the pipes. "They should be advising us through an application form or at least a contact," he said. The CRD would then decide what to do.
The definition of "hazardous waste" included in the bylaw lists, among other things, "animal waste, untreated microbiology laboratory waste... and untreated human blood and body fluids known to contain viruses."
The bylaw allows for fines of up to $10,000 a day while a violation continues.
Smyth could not say whether UVic's fish facility is under investigation. "We're investigating lots of cases right now."
On UVic campus, Microtek makes vaccines for fish farms, hatcheries. Pathogens, chemicals, flowed out untreated. First of a three-part special report.
By Andrew MacLeod
Published: July 9, 2008
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/07/09/T...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=140708
TheTyee.ca
During the spring, large volumes of untreated water laced with fish diseases were travelling from a University of Victoria laboratory used by a private company through the city's sewerage system and into the ocean, a situation that caused alarm among some employees.
"This situation is not acceptable since untreated water with pathogens [is] going into the general sewer line instead of being treated by our system," wrote Ralph Scheurle, UVic's manager of animal care services, in a May e-mail to Dino Valeri, the school's manager of capital projects.
The problem was only the latest at the lab used by Microtek Research and Development Ltd., a company that makes vaccines for the fish farming and hatchery industries. A UVic microbiology and biochemistry professor, William Kay, heads the company. Documents obtained by the Tyee trace a history of problems with the lab, and the frustration of the UVic employees who are supposed to make sure the facility follows health and safety rules and regulations.
The ongoing problems raise questions about the relationship the public university has with Microtek, whether it is subsidizing the company or stands to make money from it, and whether it has done enough to make sure the lab runs properly. They are key questions at a time when public institutions are increasingly turning to businesses to look for revenue beyond tuition fees and government grants.
"My understanding is as follows," wrote Scheurle in a May 6 e-mail to seven people, including UVic's director of research services Rachael Scarth and Microtek's vice-president of operations, Steve Carlos. "Under certain conditions the water which leaves the [pathology] labs (Microtek side) can leave the system WITHOUT any water treatment and enter the city sewer system. I concur with Mike [James, aquatic facility manager] that this is MAJOR concern and MUST be dealt with immediately."
Authorities not contacted
Despite the urgency of the e-mail, another document said Scheurle had known about the problem as early as Feb. 27, though he did not respond until reminded on April 24, nearly two months later. Nor does he appear to have acted on the problem until his May 6 e-mails.
At that time, Scheurle said UVic plumbers would add more piping to "increase the height of the overflow pipe" and a Microtek employee would reduce the volume of water going into the overflowing pump. Scheurle would consult an engineer and begin working on a long-term solution.
There is no indication in the documents, however, of any plans to contact the Capital Regional District, Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or any other authority that might be interested in bio-waste entering the CRD sewerage system and the ocean.
Scheurle is quoted in one summary telling facility staff not to contact the CRD. He did not return calls by press time. Nor did several other representatives of both the university and Microtek.
UVic's vice-president of research, Howard Brunt, who returned to the school in April 2007 after four years away, said the Vancouver Island Health Authority was brought in to investigate the problem with the treatment system because there were concerns the water was being re-used on campus for things like irrigation. VIHA's interest ended when it was found the water was not being used on campus and did not pose a public health risk, he said. He said he didn't know whether the CRD, DFO or Environment Canada were contacted once it was discovered the overflow was entering the region's system.
The documents fail to note exactly what diseases would have been in the water that was going into the CRD pipes. The regional government is moving ahead with plans to build an estimated $1.2 billion sewage treatment system -- despite lingering resistance from some vocal opponents, including several UVic professors -- but currently does nothing but run it through a screen before it enters the ocean. Besides fish diseases, the water from the UVic pathology lab likely also contained formalin, a parasite killing solution made from formaldehyde gas and commonly used in aquaculture.
Experiments with sea lice
Microtek is the largest user of the university aquatic facility. In November 2007, Microtek sent the university a list of 12 studies it was doing in the lab on campus. They included tests on tilapia and rainbow trout to study vaccines for several diseases. At other times, records show, the company was studying diseased Atlantic salmon. At least one experiment involved sea lice, a parasite some salmon researchers say likely spreads from fish farms to wild fish.
A DFO media contact said questions about fish viruses being discharged into the ocean should be directed to Environment Canada. An official from that ministry responded by e-mail to general questions about monitoring and enforcement by saying, "more info would be required on the discharge itself. You are going to have to be very specific." She did not respond to a second e-mail by press time.
Trevor Smyth, the supervisor of the CRD's source control program, which aims to prevent toxins and other hazardous waste from entering the system in the first place, said the Sewer Use Bylaw puts the onus on people or institutions to advise the CRD whenever something that shouldn't be there enters the pipes. "They should be advising us through an application form or at least a contact," he said. The CRD would then decide what to do.
The definition of "hazardous waste" included in the bylaw lists, among other things, "animal waste, untreated microbiology laboratory waste... and untreated human blood and body fluids known to contain viruses."
The bylaw allows for fines of up to $10,000 a day while a violation continues.
Smyth could not say whether UVic's fish facility is under investigation. "We're investigating lots of cases right now."
UVic Fish Lab Employees Raised Many Alarms
On UVic campus, Microtek makes vaccines for fish farms, hatcheries. At Microtek, a two-year history of concerns expressed. Second in a three-part special report.
By Andrew MacLeod
Published: July 10, 2008
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/07/10/FishLab/
TheTyee.ca
The spill of untreated, disease-laced waste water from a University of Victoria laboratory into the Capital Regional District's sewage system was only the latest problem related to Microtek Research and Development Ltd.'s use of the school's facilities.
Documents obtained by The Tyee show that in the two years before the spill of untreated water from the lab into city sewerage, the three staff at the aquatic research facility were having trouble getting Microtek to follow the university's standard operating procedures and animal care regulations. But when they asked UVic administrators to back them up, they were told to go easy on the company.
Two of the staff members who were involved, Mike James and Simon Grant, refused to be interviewed. A source familiar with what's happening at the facility said the pair have become frustrated with how the university hampers them from doing their jobs and have asked to be laid-off. At the start of July they remained employees of the university, but were not in the office.
The third employee in the facility, Brian Ringwood, said his co-workers are "disgruntled" but he believes everything is running fine. "I work here," he said. "I don't have any problems with what I do. I sleep at night, you know what I mean."
Asked about some of the problems documented over the past couple years with Microtek, he said animal care isn't his area. "I totally didn't get involved with that. I didn't get involved in their fight," he said. "I just put my head down and do my job. That's the way I look at it." Seeing things differently from his co-workers did make life difficult, he acknowledged. "I've been stuck in the middle here. It's not a comfortable place to be."
Microtek's vice-president of operations, Steve Carlos, said the company has used the facility at UVic for at least 15 years and has had "amicable and agreeable relationships with various managers of the facility until recently." The company does not "purposely or knowingly" violate the operating procedures and regulations governing the facility.
Calros suggested allegations of violations "appear to be both vindictive and personal" and noted the company is inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and UVic's aquatic facility staff.
A researcher who uses the facility declined to be interviewed, but said there have been ongoing problems. Asked about the roles of James and Grant, the researcher said, "Those guys are great. They're not the problem."
Ongoing problems
On Aug. 14, 2007, James wrote in an e-mail: "This fight is a reoccurring theme that frankly is getting old. We should not have to spend hours/days arguing over SOP's that are in place or simple policies that we need to institute. The amount of time that we spend on this is astronomical."
He suggested the company was getting special treatment. "The things that Microtek/Norm [Johnson] get away with would not fly with the other [researchers] that use this facility or with the [Canadian Council on Animal Care]. We have an entire list of protocols not being followed."
But when James took concerns to the university's Animal Care Committee, he found anything related to Microtek was kept out of the publicly available meeting minutes. "Mike James, in reviewing ACC meeting minutes, noted that Microtek International's continued violation of SOP's, are suppressed from the public record," the document said. "These minutes fail to reflect Aquatics concerns stemming back to October 2006."
Those concerns included a mass kill of an estimated 1,000 salmon in August 2006 when the fish were flushed from Microtek tanks into the pumps for the aquatics facility recirculation system.
They also included worries about how Microtek employees kill the fish when they are done experimenting on them. Guidelines for university researchers set by the Canadian Council on Animal Care prohibit decapitating animals when researchers are finished with them.
However, according to a document prepared for UVic by staff in the aquatic facility, decapitating fish was standard procedure. "Simon Grant observed Microtek International employee, Norman Johnson, 'hand-squishing' slow swimmers -- takes fish-in-hand and flicks the head off of the fish," it said. "This violation continues to present day."
Failure to comply
There were also problems with how Microtek added chemicals to tanks. A Dece. 3, 2007 non-compliance report said a Microtek employee, Norman Johnson, had refused since October 2006 to follow the standard procedures for treating tanks. Nor was he keeping the facility managers informed when he was treating the water, making it hard for them to manage the facility for all users.
Microtek's Johnson responded saying meeting the requirements would just mean extra work for himself with little benefit.
Nor did Johnson follow rules that required people working with animals to wear gloves. He got into a confrontation with Simon Grant over the issue. As Johnson put it to Ralph Scheurle in a January 10, 2008 e-mail, "I told him [Grant] that this job would be easy if he stopped acting like a jerk."
Another day, James noted that Johnson was moving fish from the pathology lab, where diseased fish are kept, into outdoor tanks that should not have been contaminated. He wrote an e-mail on Nov. 1, 2007 to Microtek's Steve Carlos: "As far as I am concerned this is a major breach of Bio security. The pathology labs are a one-way trip and have always been that way. I have to assume that whatever is in those labs is now in the recirculation system."
James consulted with Michele Martin, a veterinarian at UVic and the B.C. Cancer Agency. "This should not occur," she wrote. "The animals that have been inside the laboratory where the pathogens have been tested would be considered potentially exposed, regardless of their 'naive/control' status (cross-contamination risk), particularly in the movement process. Furthermore, by moving them back into the recirc system you would be potentially exposing other animals to this risk."
She also noted using fish for more than one study might affect Microtek's results. "I'm not sure that reusing control animals would be considered a sound research practice," she wrote. "However it is possible in some settings this may be done. I know it's certainly not the practice in mammalian species."
Deteriorating relationship
Microtek vice president Carlos explained in an e-mail that re-using fish was a matter of thrift. Atlantic salmon are difficult to get, he said, and the company could not afford to "waste" them.
James said in his e-mail to Carlos that he was considering contacting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which regulates food safety. If CFIA's approvals of food grown using Microtek products were based on faulty science or poor testing, it would be significant to the fish farmers who buy the drugs and the people who buy fish from the farms.
Carlos wrote James an angry message on Nov. 3, 2007. "To contact CFIA directly only indicates that you are adamant of destroying Mikroteks [sic] reputation and financial cash flow," he said. "If this irresponsible tactic of yours leads to an inquiry and suspension of our product licenses then we will have to look for compensation."
As the relationship between the facility managers and the company deteriorated, James' boss Ralph Scheurle sent a message to his boss, Rachael Scarth. The problem, he said, was Microtek's failure to follow UVic's standard operating procedures, or SOPs. James wanted the university to support him.
"After his four unsuccesful attempts to have Microtek's Norman follow the UVic's SOP on tank treatments, he has officially requested that the Office of Research Services back him up and enforce this requests [sic] to follow the UVic SOP's and support him as coordinator of the Aquatic Unit," Scheurle said in the Nov. 7 message.
At that point Scheurle had already checked with Microtek's main employee at the facility and could outline his position. "Basically Norman is saying that (Microtek) has its way of doing tank treatments and they will ignore Mike's requests and continue doing them their way," he said.
"The bottom line is Mike need's [sic] our support or he will abandon his efforts on enforcing UVic SOP's [sic] and takes no responsibility of any consequences from not meeting CCAC guidelines etc. His professional abilities have been questioned by Microtek and he sees this as a very serious matter."
Tone changed say employees
The university would have been entirely within its rights to enforce the guidelines. The current facilities agreement contract between Microtek, Prof. William Kay and UVic, covering Nov. 1, 2007 to Oct. 31, 2009, says the company will follow all relevant policies and regulations.
"Microtek warrants it will follow Occupational Health and Safety policies, CCAC regulations and any other Provincial/Federal regulations that the University would be bound by related to the operation of the University Aquatics Research Facility," it said. "Microtek warrants that it will follow all University Animal Care Services policies and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Any deviation from such procedures must first be approved by the UVic Animal Care Committee by application."
The agreement also said, "Microtek will follow all current guidelines in regards to biosecurity and biohazard issues related to the operation of the University Aquatics Research Facility." And, later, "Microtek agrees to observe the University's safety and other rules when on University property."
The contract recognizes the role James should play in that as the manager of the facility, and allowed that the university would make a "daily examination of the animals housed within the Aquatics Research Facility."
Looking after the fish is a shared responsibility between the company and the university, it said. "The parties agree to work together to ensure the administration of adequate health care of the animals."
Though Scheurle had asked Scarth in November 2007 to back up James, by December the tone had changed, according to a complaint submitted to the university by James and Grant. In the document, they say Scheurle told his staff to "back off on Microtek."
Scarth could not be contacted. In early July her voice message said she would be away until July 14.
The dean of science, Tom Pedersen, said he doesn't follow the details of what's happening at the facility and he's not responsible for it. He signed the facility agreement with Microtek on behalf of the university, but he said it's not his job to enforce the contract's terms. "Afraid I can't offer any more there." He suggested talking to Richard Keeler, UVic's associate vice president of research.
Keeler's name appears frequently in the documents tracing the problems at the lab, and he also signed contracts with Microtek for the university. An assistant said he is on holiday until August and is unavailable.
On UVic campus, Microtek makes vaccines for fish farms, hatcheries. At Microtek, a two-year history of concerns expressed. Second in a three-part special report.
By Andrew MacLeod
Published: July 10, 2008
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/07/10/FishLab/
TheTyee.ca
The spill of untreated, disease-laced waste water from a University of Victoria laboratory into the Capital Regional District's sewage system was only the latest problem related to Microtek Research and Development Ltd.'s use of the school's facilities.
Documents obtained by The Tyee show that in the two years before the spill of untreated water from the lab into city sewerage, the three staff at the aquatic research facility were having trouble getting Microtek to follow the university's standard operating procedures and animal care regulations. But when they asked UVic administrators to back them up, they were told to go easy on the company.
Two of the staff members who were involved, Mike James and Simon Grant, refused to be interviewed. A source familiar with what's happening at the facility said the pair have become frustrated with how the university hampers them from doing their jobs and have asked to be laid-off. At the start of July they remained employees of the university, but were not in the office.
The third employee in the facility, Brian Ringwood, said his co-workers are "disgruntled" but he believes everything is running fine. "I work here," he said. "I don't have any problems with what I do. I sleep at night, you know what I mean."
Asked about some of the problems documented over the past couple years with Microtek, he said animal care isn't his area. "I totally didn't get involved with that. I didn't get involved in their fight," he said. "I just put my head down and do my job. That's the way I look at it." Seeing things differently from his co-workers did make life difficult, he acknowledged. "I've been stuck in the middle here. It's not a comfortable place to be."
Microtek's vice-president of operations, Steve Carlos, said the company has used the facility at UVic for at least 15 years and has had "amicable and agreeable relationships with various managers of the facility until recently." The company does not "purposely or knowingly" violate the operating procedures and regulations governing the facility.
Calros suggested allegations of violations "appear to be both vindictive and personal" and noted the company is inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and UVic's aquatic facility staff.
A researcher who uses the facility declined to be interviewed, but said there have been ongoing problems. Asked about the roles of James and Grant, the researcher said, "Those guys are great. They're not the problem."
Ongoing problems
On Aug. 14, 2007, James wrote in an e-mail: "This fight is a reoccurring theme that frankly is getting old. We should not have to spend hours/days arguing over SOP's that are in place or simple policies that we need to institute. The amount of time that we spend on this is astronomical."
He suggested the company was getting special treatment. "The things that Microtek/Norm [Johnson] get away with would not fly with the other [researchers] that use this facility or with the [Canadian Council on Animal Care]. We have an entire list of protocols not being followed."
But when James took concerns to the university's Animal Care Committee, he found anything related to Microtek was kept out of the publicly available meeting minutes. "Mike James, in reviewing ACC meeting minutes, noted that Microtek International's continued violation of SOP's, are suppressed from the public record," the document said. "These minutes fail to reflect Aquatics concerns stemming back to October 2006."
Those concerns included a mass kill of an estimated 1,000 salmon in August 2006 when the fish were flushed from Microtek tanks into the pumps for the aquatics facility recirculation system.
They also included worries about how Microtek employees kill the fish when they are done experimenting on them. Guidelines for university researchers set by the Canadian Council on Animal Care prohibit decapitating animals when researchers are finished with them.
However, according to a document prepared for UVic by staff in the aquatic facility, decapitating fish was standard procedure. "Simon Grant observed Microtek International employee, Norman Johnson, 'hand-squishing' slow swimmers -- takes fish-in-hand and flicks the head off of the fish," it said. "This violation continues to present day."
Failure to comply
There were also problems with how Microtek added chemicals to tanks. A Dece. 3, 2007 non-compliance report said a Microtek employee, Norman Johnson, had refused since October 2006 to follow the standard procedures for treating tanks. Nor was he keeping the facility managers informed when he was treating the water, making it hard for them to manage the facility for all users.
Microtek's Johnson responded saying meeting the requirements would just mean extra work for himself with little benefit.
Nor did Johnson follow rules that required people working with animals to wear gloves. He got into a confrontation with Simon Grant over the issue. As Johnson put it to Ralph Scheurle in a January 10, 2008 e-mail, "I told him [Grant] that this job would be easy if he stopped acting like a jerk."
Another day, James noted that Johnson was moving fish from the pathology lab, where diseased fish are kept, into outdoor tanks that should not have been contaminated. He wrote an e-mail on Nov. 1, 2007 to Microtek's Steve Carlos: "As far as I am concerned this is a major breach of Bio security. The pathology labs are a one-way trip and have always been that way. I have to assume that whatever is in those labs is now in the recirculation system."
James consulted with Michele Martin, a veterinarian at UVic and the B.C. Cancer Agency. "This should not occur," she wrote. "The animals that have been inside the laboratory where the pathogens have been tested would be considered potentially exposed, regardless of their 'naive/control' status (cross-contamination risk), particularly in the movement process. Furthermore, by moving them back into the recirc system you would be potentially exposing other animals to this risk."
She also noted using fish for more than one study might affect Microtek's results. "I'm not sure that reusing control animals would be considered a sound research practice," she wrote. "However it is possible in some settings this may be done. I know it's certainly not the practice in mammalian species."
Deteriorating relationship
Microtek vice president Carlos explained in an e-mail that re-using fish was a matter of thrift. Atlantic salmon are difficult to get, he said, and the company could not afford to "waste" them.
James said in his e-mail to Carlos that he was considering contacting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which regulates food safety. If CFIA's approvals of food grown using Microtek products were based on faulty science or poor testing, it would be significant to the fish farmers who buy the drugs and the people who buy fish from the farms.
Carlos wrote James an angry message on Nov. 3, 2007. "To contact CFIA directly only indicates that you are adamant of destroying Mikroteks [sic] reputation and financial cash flow," he said. "If this irresponsible tactic of yours leads to an inquiry and suspension of our product licenses then we will have to look for compensation."
As the relationship between the facility managers and the company deteriorated, James' boss Ralph Scheurle sent a message to his boss, Rachael Scarth. The problem, he said, was Microtek's failure to follow UVic's standard operating procedures, or SOPs. James wanted the university to support him.
"After his four unsuccesful attempts to have Microtek's Norman follow the UVic's SOP on tank treatments, he has officially requested that the Office of Research Services back him up and enforce this requests [sic] to follow the UVic SOP's and support him as coordinator of the Aquatic Unit," Scheurle said in the Nov. 7 message.
At that point Scheurle had already checked with Microtek's main employee at the facility and could outline his position. "Basically Norman is saying that (Microtek) has its way of doing tank treatments and they will ignore Mike's requests and continue doing them their way," he said.
"The bottom line is Mike need's [sic] our support or he will abandon his efforts on enforcing UVic SOP's [sic] and takes no responsibility of any consequences from not meeting CCAC guidelines etc. His professional abilities have been questioned by Microtek and he sees this as a very serious matter."
Tone changed say employees
The university would have been entirely within its rights to enforce the guidelines. The current facilities agreement contract between Microtek, Prof. William Kay and UVic, covering Nov. 1, 2007 to Oct. 31, 2009, says the company will follow all relevant policies and regulations.
"Microtek warrants it will follow Occupational Health and Safety policies, CCAC regulations and any other Provincial/Federal regulations that the University would be bound by related to the operation of the University Aquatics Research Facility," it said. "Microtek warrants that it will follow all University Animal Care Services policies and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Any deviation from such procedures must first be approved by the UVic Animal Care Committee by application."
The agreement also said, "Microtek will follow all current guidelines in regards to biosecurity and biohazard issues related to the operation of the University Aquatics Research Facility." And, later, "Microtek agrees to observe the University's safety and other rules when on University property."
The contract recognizes the role James should play in that as the manager of the facility, and allowed that the university would make a "daily examination of the animals housed within the Aquatics Research Facility."
Looking after the fish is a shared responsibility between the company and the university, it said. "The parties agree to work together to ensure the administration of adequate health care of the animals."
Though Scheurle had asked Scarth in November 2007 to back up James, by December the tone had changed, according to a complaint submitted to the university by James and Grant. In the document, they say Scheurle told his staff to "back off on Microtek."
Scarth could not be contacted. In early July her voice message said she would be away until July 14.
The dean of science, Tom Pedersen, said he doesn't follow the details of what's happening at the facility and he's not responsible for it. He signed the facility agreement with Microtek on behalf of the university, but he said it's not his job to enforce the contract's terms. "Afraid I can't offer any more there." He suggested talking to Richard Keeler, UVic's associate vice president of research.
Keeler's name appears frequently in the documents tracing the problems at the lab, and he also signed contracts with Microtek for the university. An assistant said he is on holiday until August and is unavailable.
Microtek's Money
On UVic campus, Microtek makes vaccines for fish farms, hatcheries. University owns piece of fish-farm vaccine-maker accused of poor practices. Last in a series.
By Andrew MacLeod
Published: July 11, 2008
TheTyee.ca
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/07/11/M...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=140708
A fish vaccine company that has had ongoing problems following animal care and other regulations at the University of Victoria was an early product of the school's efforts to commercialize its research.
The Tyee reported that untreated waste water was leaving labs used by Microtek Research & Development Ltd. for fish disease tests and entering Capital Regional District's sewers, where it passes through a screen before entering the ocean.
The overflow problem came as the UVic employees who run the facility tried unsuccesfully to get the company to follow operating procedures, policies and rules set out by various bodies, including the school, the Canadian Council on Animal Care and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. UVic administrators eventually told the employees to "back off" on the company, according to a formal complaint filed by two staffers.
The apparent failure to deal with the ongoing problems raises questions about the relationship the public university has with Microtek and whether it stands to make money from it. They are key questions at a time when public institutions are increasingly turning to businesses to look for revenue beyond tuition fees and government grants.
Certainly facility managers, frustrated in their attempts to do their jobs, had a hypothesis for what was happening. In documents submitted to UVic, they suggested the relationship between the school and Microtek is a public-private partnership where the university will use student fees to "heavily subsidize" the company until it is financially viable.
UVic helped company launch
There is little doubt there is a close relationship between UVic and Microtek. There are two companies registered under the Microtek name in B.C., Microtek Research & Development Ltd. and Microtek International Inc. Each company has just one director, UVic professor William Kay. Kay did not return calls by press time.
Kay teaches in UVic's department of biochemistry and microbiology, and a department newsletter from 2005 describes Microtek as "a UVic company." Since 1990, some 32 UVic co-op students have worked for Microtek and eight of the company's 13 employees are UVic graduates, a university spokeswoman said.
UVic helped launch Microtek through its Innovation and Development Corporation, an office that exists to commercialize the work of university researchers. While UVic is normally entitled to up to 50 per cent of the net revenues of spin-off companies, that's not the case with Microtek.
"We have no relationship with them anymore," said Kathy Veldhoen, IDC's vice-president of operations. "We don't have any of their patents. They've absorbed all that."
Often the companies IDC works with become independent, she said. "It's not abnormal. There was no more need for IDC's involvement. That was the best solution for everyone at the time." She didn't know the details of how Microtek left, but said, "I imagine they spun out and they were making a go of it."
School owns piece of Microtek
The university does own a small percentage of Microtek, Veldhoen added, but it is less than three per cent of the company. "That's it."
A UVic spokeswoman, Maria Lironi, later said that since Microtek is a private company, the value of UVic's share is unavailable. She suggested asking Steve Carlos, a Microtek vice-president.
Carlos said Microtek is owned by the Kay family. The owners "gifted" 4.5 per cent of the company to UVic's IDC, he said. It's hard to say how much the company or UVic's portion of it is worth, he said, since there's never been a formal valuation of the company. "It is not our policy to disclose Microtek's revenues save to say they are very modest," he added.
Microtek's products are distributed around the world by the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer. "We apply the science of modern biotechnology to living things, and produce beneficial health products for the worldwide aquaculture industry," Microtek's website said.
The company's products are used for salmon, trout, tilapia, hybrid striped bass, turbot, flounder and other fish species, the website said, and are used in Canada, the U.S., Chile and Norway.
While profit figures are unavailable, it's clear the market for suppressing sickness on fish farms is large and growing. A Canadian government website said Microtek made advances with a vaccine for a salmon disease called furunculosis, which "costs the B.C. salmon aqua-culture indurstry $5.4 million annually." Worldwide, the disease kills $100 million in salmon farming profits, the Networks of Centres of Excellence said.
UVic subsidizing business?
A "facilities agreement" between UVic, Kay and Microtek said the school would "house Microtek animals" and "assign space to Microtek within the Aquatics Research Facility for research relating to the development and testing of vaccines for fish." The space rental is included in the fee Microtek pays to UVic, which charges 31 cents per litre of tank volume the company uses each month.
The bill works out to about $40,000 a year, according to a source familiar with the arrangement, who added the fee is much less than it likely costs the university to run the facility and provide service to Microtek. UVic spokeswoman Lironi could not confirm the figures by deadline.
Similar agreements go back to at least 1999. At that time, the company agreed to finance up to $75,000 worth of improvements to the facility so that it would meet its needs. UVic agreed to pay the company back by reducing its bills until the upgrades were covered.
The agreements specify that anything learned during the research remains property of the company. UVic can use any such information only for "internal academic purposes of a non-commercial nature."
While she declined to talk about Microtek and UVic in particular, the federal NDP's advanced education critic, Victoria MP Denise Savoie, said that in recent decades there's been a push for universities to commercialize their research. "It impacts where we're going with basic research," she said. "What are we gaining here and what are we risking?"
There are many cases where finding ways to market knowledge gained at universities is good for the public, she said. "I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with transfer of technology for practical applications," she said. However, she added, it shouldn't be the main thing driving research.
"Universities' and colleges' increased reliance on either private or commercial funding is directly, directly related to reduced support by government of universities," Savoie said. As funding shrinks, university administrators have fewer choices and finding products to sell becomes more attractive.
"It's clear that universities, having been underfunded, have turned to commercialization of research," said Savoie. "You shouldn't be forcing a commercialization, a product, on the researcher.... I think there is a danger that we are going to so narrow not just research, but education."
The ethical lines should be clear, she said. It would be very tempting for schools to think "because we're so short funded, we'll round the edges a bit," she said.
Nor, as the case of Microtek's disease-laced waters going into the ocean shows, is it enough to have ethical guidelines and regulations on paper. Schools like UVic have to commit to enforcing them as well.
On UVic campus, Microtek makes vaccines for fish farms, hatcheries. University owns piece of fish-farm vaccine-maker accused of poor practices. Last in a series.
By Andrew MacLeod
Published: July 11, 2008
TheTyee.ca
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/07/11/M...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=140708
A fish vaccine company that has had ongoing problems following animal care and other regulations at the University of Victoria was an early product of the school's efforts to commercialize its research.
The Tyee reported that untreated waste water was leaving labs used by Microtek Research & Development Ltd. for fish disease tests and entering Capital Regional District's sewers, where it passes through a screen before entering the ocean.
The overflow problem came as the UVic employees who run the facility tried unsuccesfully to get the company to follow operating procedures, policies and rules set out by various bodies, including the school, the Canadian Council on Animal Care and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. UVic administrators eventually told the employees to "back off" on the company, according to a formal complaint filed by two staffers.
The apparent failure to deal with the ongoing problems raises questions about the relationship the public university has with Microtek and whether it stands to make money from it. They are key questions at a time when public institutions are increasingly turning to businesses to look for revenue beyond tuition fees and government grants.
Certainly facility managers, frustrated in their attempts to do their jobs, had a hypothesis for what was happening. In documents submitted to UVic, they suggested the relationship between the school and Microtek is a public-private partnership where the university will use student fees to "heavily subsidize" the company until it is financially viable.
UVic helped company launch
There is little doubt there is a close relationship between UVic and Microtek. There are two companies registered under the Microtek name in B.C., Microtek Research & Development Ltd. and Microtek International Inc. Each company has just one director, UVic professor William Kay. Kay did not return calls by press time.
Kay teaches in UVic's department of biochemistry and microbiology, and a department newsletter from 2005 describes Microtek as "a UVic company." Since 1990, some 32 UVic co-op students have worked for Microtek and eight of the company's 13 employees are UVic graduates, a university spokeswoman said.
UVic helped launch Microtek through its Innovation and Development Corporation, an office that exists to commercialize the work of university researchers. While UVic is normally entitled to up to 50 per cent of the net revenues of spin-off companies, that's not the case with Microtek.
"We have no relationship with them anymore," said Kathy Veldhoen, IDC's vice-president of operations. "We don't have any of their patents. They've absorbed all that."
Often the companies IDC works with become independent, she said. "It's not abnormal. There was no more need for IDC's involvement. That was the best solution for everyone at the time." She didn't know the details of how Microtek left, but said, "I imagine they spun out and they were making a go of it."
School owns piece of Microtek
The university does own a small percentage of Microtek, Veldhoen added, but it is less than three per cent of the company. "That's it."
A UVic spokeswoman, Maria Lironi, later said that since Microtek is a private company, the value of UVic's share is unavailable. She suggested asking Steve Carlos, a Microtek vice-president.
Carlos said Microtek is owned by the Kay family. The owners "gifted" 4.5 per cent of the company to UVic's IDC, he said. It's hard to say how much the company or UVic's portion of it is worth, he said, since there's never been a formal valuation of the company. "It is not our policy to disclose Microtek's revenues save to say they are very modest," he added.
Microtek's products are distributed around the world by the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer. "We apply the science of modern biotechnology to living things, and produce beneficial health products for the worldwide aquaculture industry," Microtek's website said.
The company's products are used for salmon, trout, tilapia, hybrid striped bass, turbot, flounder and other fish species, the website said, and are used in Canada, the U.S., Chile and Norway.
While profit figures are unavailable, it's clear the market for suppressing sickness on fish farms is large and growing. A Canadian government website said Microtek made advances with a vaccine for a salmon disease called furunculosis, which "costs the B.C. salmon aqua-culture indurstry $5.4 million annually." Worldwide, the disease kills $100 million in salmon farming profits, the Networks of Centres of Excellence said.
UVic subsidizing business?
A "facilities agreement" between UVic, Kay and Microtek said the school would "house Microtek animals" and "assign space to Microtek within the Aquatics Research Facility for research relating to the development and testing of vaccines for fish." The space rental is included in the fee Microtek pays to UVic, which charges 31 cents per litre of tank volume the company uses each month.
The bill works out to about $40,000 a year, according to a source familiar with the arrangement, who added the fee is much less than it likely costs the university to run the facility and provide service to Microtek. UVic spokeswoman Lironi could not confirm the figures by deadline.
Similar agreements go back to at least 1999. At that time, the company agreed to finance up to $75,000 worth of improvements to the facility so that it would meet its needs. UVic agreed to pay the company back by reducing its bills until the upgrades were covered.
The agreements specify that anything learned during the research remains property of the company. UVic can use any such information only for "internal academic purposes of a non-commercial nature."
While she declined to talk about Microtek and UVic in particular, the federal NDP's advanced education critic, Victoria MP Denise Savoie, said that in recent decades there's been a push for universities to commercialize their research. "It impacts where we're going with basic research," she said. "What are we gaining here and what are we risking?"
There are many cases where finding ways to market knowledge gained at universities is good for the public, she said. "I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with transfer of technology for practical applications," she said. However, she added, it shouldn't be the main thing driving research.
"Universities' and colleges' increased reliance on either private or commercial funding is directly, directly related to reduced support by government of universities," Savoie said. As funding shrinks, university administrators have fewer choices and finding products to sell becomes more attractive.
"It's clear that universities, having been underfunded, have turned to commercialization of research," said Savoie. "You shouldn't be forcing a commercialization, a product, on the researcher.... I think there is a danger that we are going to so narrow not just research, but education."
The ethical lines should be clear, she said. It would be very tempting for schools to think "because we're so short funded, we'll round the edges a bit," she said.
Nor, as the case of Microtek's disease-laced waters going into the ocean shows, is it enough to have ethical guidelines and regulations on paper. Schools like UVic have to commit to enforcing them as well.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Salmon are being raised profitably in land based fresh water ponds in Viet Nam.
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.php?num=01AGR020808
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.php?num=01AGR020808
H
handee
Guest
Im baaack!
you'd have to look at his books to see if he made a profit. "doubling profits" can mean losing half as much money as the year before. its typical accountantspeak people use when looking for investors. you'd also have to look at the water quality to see if its treated water.
You can make money growing salmon in closed containment if all you do is suck in free clean water and spit out dirty water and if you are able to buy a facility with borrowed money that has gone bankrupt.
Its when you have to build from scratch and clean the water that you lose money. Of course if you dont treat the inluent and effluent water then the system is NOT "closed". you also need access to ALOT (aka continuous)of clean fresh water.
The viet nam system shows what we already know- you can grow fish in tanks- the trick is keeping the fish biologically separate-thats where you go high tech. thats where the expense comes in, thats why "closed" is only viable for freshwater exotiocs than can tolerate high density. salmon can grow in freshwater but they do not fetch enough money (even at quadruple the current retail price) and they dont like high densities.
H
handee
Guest
fish farm of the future eh?
growing warmwater, freshwater,high density tolerant, GMO fish that can grow to market size (2 pounds) in 8 months. Yup closed containment salmon farming is a great idea.
only problem is salmon are cold water, low density, saltwater, fish that take 24 months from fry to a market size of 10 pounds.
oh and by the way the fish farm shown as landbased is NOT "closed". for one thing its open to birds and the effluent water is returned to an open pond untreated.
H
handee
Guest
No one is saying Morton is a Kook, ie a bad scientist wannabe, because she doesnt have credentials. they are saying she doesn't have credentials, experience knowledge AND she is a bad scientist. Actually she's not a bad scientist,she doesnt understand science.
Thats why what she says to the media doesnt jive with the papers that get published with her name on them.
In a letter to her readers in 2002 she wanted to do a candlelight vigil for the poor juveniles returning to sea (shes a kook). she was "witnessing extinction" as she had supposedly scientifically proven (not true). In 2004 the returns of pink salmon had quadrupled from the previous even year. so her prediction of extinction turned out to be a quadruple increase in adult salmon returns.
Not a surprise.
So again, she is discredited because she is wrong all the time AND its no surprise she is wrong because she is not a highly trained fisheries scientist,she has no experience as such AND she has no credentials as such.
Thats all. No offense intended. Just calling a spade a spade.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Welcome back Handee,
You said,
As far as the Vietnamese salmon farmer story goes, you said,
You said,
If the "poor juveniles" were "returning to sea" in 2002, then wouldn't they actually return as adults in 2003, not 2004?
As far as the Vietnamese salmon farmer story goes, you said,
I think there is a clear distinction between "profit" and "loss" in accounting. One can double one's revenue</u> which might translate into losing half as much as the year before, but that would not mean making a profit. And I never claimed that the Vietnamese were growing salmon in closed containment, I simply said fresh water ponds.
Handee, you are one of the worst hypocrites I have ever seen posting on this forum.
1/ First - It is only you and others associated with the industry you are trying to defend - that likes to brutally and personally attack Alex Morton because you don't want her message and the truth it contains to get out to the general public.
2/ Where the h*** is your science and experience, Handee? Alex has many scientific papers published. Where's yours?
It's not Alex who doesn't understand science or sea lice - it is you.
YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE AND A FRAUD.</u>
Just like you - "Thats all. No offense intended. Just calling a spade a spade."
Little Hawk
Active Member
Well said!
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
I find Handee's attack on Morton to be a crude attempt to mimic earlier fish farm industry tactics used successfully to discredit other peer reviewed science that was potentially damaging to their industry. Here's a link to an article describing how those tactics were applied to the PCB studies from 2004.
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4925/8/
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4925/8/
H
handee
Guest
Guys,
its not an attack. Morton has published some reasonable papers on whale music. good for her. that's what she went to school for.
Its not an attack to say her predictions dont come true and her statements to the press are not supported by her own published work. Its also not an attack to say that her predictions continue to fail to come true. thats just fact.
I called her a kook for her stunts like having candleit vigils for fish. just an opinion. she writes a lot of emotional garbage and then tries to pass herself off as an objective science. her mind was made up about sealice before she put her first dipnet into the water. thats a fact too- she wrote all about her certainty before she had done any research. unless you call driving around in a boat making up scary anti salmon farming stories research.
saying she doesnt have credentials is not an attack. its just a fact. she has no background in parsitology, oceanography, fisheries science or any of the disciplines associated with her sea lice 'research". Experts in the field fail to be able to repeat her results.
That's not attacking her, thats how science works. You put up a theory, you test it and your peers (and by that I mean experts in the field of study, Im not trying to imply that Morton is an expert- she clearly is not, one can get their name on a peer reviewed paper simply by driving a boat or chipping in some $upport)try and repeat your tests to see if they get the same results.
Rather than questioning her own hypothesis Morton just calls experts who produce different results and conclusions than hers "attackers". nonsense. a real scientist would welcome challenges and go out and do better research. morton and her buddies go out and do a paper that is basedon a computer model- alot cheaper and easier and you can make the model say anything you want.
getting articles with your name on them published, getting your face in the paper, getting awards from ENGO's does not make you an expert.
What makes you an expert is integrity. you study in a field for decades,you do reserach in your area of expertise and you are respected by your peers- whether they agree with you or not. you DONT claim to have all the answers before you do the research and your comments to the press are the same found in your paper- not the exact opposite.
im not claiming to be an expert in the league of Beamish, Brooks, Jones, Trudel, etc. Im just stating the bleeding obvious.
its not an attack. Morton has published some reasonable papers on whale music. good for her. that's what she went to school for.
Its not an attack to say her predictions dont come true and her statements to the press are not supported by her own published work. Its also not an attack to say that her predictions continue to fail to come true. thats just fact.
I called her a kook for her stunts like having candleit vigils for fish. just an opinion. she writes a lot of emotional garbage and then tries to pass herself off as an objective science. her mind was made up about sealice before she put her first dipnet into the water. thats a fact too- she wrote all about her certainty before she had done any research. unless you call driving around in a boat making up scary anti salmon farming stories research.
saying she doesnt have credentials is not an attack. its just a fact. she has no background in parsitology, oceanography, fisheries science or any of the disciplines associated with her sea lice 'research". Experts in the field fail to be able to repeat her results.
That's not attacking her, thats how science works. You put up a theory, you test it and your peers (and by that I mean experts in the field of study, Im not trying to imply that Morton is an expert- she clearly is not, one can get their name on a peer reviewed paper simply by driving a boat or chipping in some $upport)try and repeat your tests to see if they get the same results.
Rather than questioning her own hypothesis Morton just calls experts who produce different results and conclusions than hers "attackers". nonsense. a real scientist would welcome challenges and go out and do better research. morton and her buddies go out and do a paper that is basedon a computer model- alot cheaper and easier and you can make the model say anything you want.
getting articles with your name on them published, getting your face in the paper, getting awards from ENGO's does not make you an expert.
What makes you an expert is integrity. you study in a field for decades,you do reserach in your area of expertise and you are respected by your peers- whether they agree with you or not. you DONT claim to have all the answers before you do the research and your comments to the press are the same found in your paper- not the exact opposite.
im not claiming to be an expert in the league of Beamish, Brooks, Jones, Trudel, etc. Im just stating the bleeding obvious.
H
handee
Guest
two points to cuttlefish.
You are right the juveniles are going to sea, not returning. and you understand the true definition of "profit". my point is it is unlikely the reporter does. he was no doubt taking the word of the farmer who is trying to raise money.
the Georgia Strait alliance just put out a piece of **** paper trying to equate growing fish in ponds as a form of closed containment. they were saying "see closed containment works". the problem is growing fish in ponds is anything but closed. the fish werent salmon and the water wasnt salty. their research into the viability of the other systems not yet trialled was to ask the sales rep- just like in your Viet nam article: so does it work? guess how they responded?: "Yep, it works",in fact we had a PROFIT last year.
H
handee
Guest
That IS an excellent example of spin doctoring. The PCB study has been roundly criticized. It showed what we all knew: salmon, farmed and wild, contain very low levels of PCB's relative to all human food sources. Sometimes wild salmon have higher doses and sometimes farm salmon do- depends where you get your samples from. Copper river Alaska salmon had some of the highest levels discovered and reported in previous studies. there are many studies that have done different samples.
The spin doctors tried to create a foodscare and potentially harmed consumers by warning them to reduce their intake of farm salmon when they should in fact be eating more farmed and wild salmon, both of which were found to contain insignificant quantities of PCB's. so said USFDA and Health Canada. as well as the American Heart Foundation and others.
Once again: getting published doesnt make it true. Usually the lies are not in the paper itself but in the press releases about the paper (thats where Morton does her lying, she would get published if she did it in the journal).
The 2004 PCB paper was funded by the Alaska seafood marketting Institute in an effort to demarket their number one competition: farmed salmon.
Alaska's Governor is a major supporter of alaska Farm salmon (marketted as "wild"). he sits on the board of Science magazine and the Pew foundation that funded the paper.
Science has long ceased to be a respectable journal. Its main goal is to sell magazines.
The 2004 PCB paper was a brilliant marketting coupe. It did not dampen demand for BC farmed salmon for long, but it did help increase the prices alaska was able to fetch for its farm salmon.
tubber
Well-Known Member
quote "Once again: getting published doesnt make it true"
Nor does writing it in a fishing forum.
Handee, I've read every post on this thread and your attempts to sway opinion with "facts" almost always present as amateurishly disguised spin that even a dumbass sportsfisher like me can see through. The bottomline is that the taste/texture of farm fish is far below that of wild salmon (in other words, it tastes like ****), farms likely jeopardize wild stocks, and eating it may jeopardize my health. I won't risk it and it bothers me that gov't is willing to risk wild stocks through shabby pen placements even if cautionary warnings, anecdotal evidence, and real science is refutable by scientists on Norwegian payrolls. By the way, do you even own a fishing rod?
Nor does writing it in a fishing forum.
Handee, I've read every post on this thread and your attempts to sway opinion with "facts" almost always present as amateurishly disguised spin that even a dumbass sportsfisher like me can see through. The bottomline is that the taste/texture of farm fish is far below that of wild salmon (in other words, it tastes like ****), farms likely jeopardize wild stocks, and eating it may jeopardize my health. I won't risk it and it bothers me that gov't is willing to risk wild stocks through shabby pen placements even if cautionary warnings, anecdotal evidence, and real science is refutable by scientists on Norwegian payrolls. By the way, do you even own a fishing rod?
H
handee
Guest
dude,
farm fish have been outselling wild fish for over 15 years. It sells like hot cakes because it tastes great. Doesn't have that fishy taste.
And who cares if it tastes different?
You want us to hunt wild grouse because they taste "better" than chicken?
eating wild salmon is stupid- especially if you want to save them.
The only choice is to farm salmon. The ony way to do that in a commercially viable and environmentally safe way is in highly regulated netpens.
As Jacques Cousteau says: we have to farm the oceans as we do the lands.
Open net pens are the cow pastures of the sea.
Fish farms are not threatening wild salmon, guys with nets and fishing rods are....DUH!!!!!!!
Killing wild salmon or eationg only wild salmon in the effort to save them is stupid.
switching to eating only farmed salmon (and not the stuff from Alaska), but the stuff from net pens is the ONLY way to save them!!
Its so frikking obvious.
what a joke that a few professional enviro hippies have a bunch of BC rednecks believing you can only save the wild salmon by EATING them.
it'd be funny if not so tragic.
(maybe if we bomb the atlantic cod farms- that are FINALLY starting up 30 years too late- on the east coast we can bring back the cod by eating them)
Similar threads
