fish farm siting criteria & politics

[sockeyefry]

Fish 4

I don't think that is an unreasonable request or action.

I believe that Marine Harvest did do something like that in the Broughton. Aqua do you have any details on the fallowing?

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

I believe that Marine Harvest did do something like that in the Broughton. Aqua do you have any details on the fallowing?

Ya, as expected - the fallowing worked.

In spring 2003, the farms were fallowed along most of the main routes of juvie pinks (11 of 27 farms were fallowed along the main migratory route). See the BCMAFF fallow route below:

Also as expected - the predominant lice species found on the outmigrating pink smolts also changed with Caligus clemensi rather than Lepeotherius salmonis becoming the most prevalent species on outmigrating pink smolts. Caligus is much less damaging to pink smolts.

The most likely source for Caligus is likely herring, not farm fish. Unlike Caligus, Lepeotherius (or "Leps") is expected to be hosted and released after amplification from the fish farms along the migratory route.

The prevalence of sea lice on outmigrating pink salmon smolts dropped significantly from the adjacent non-fallowed years. The prevalence is the average number of fish in that population were infected (actually had 1 or more louse on them)- like the average of red colour cars you see on the street).

Also as expected - in 2002 the overall prevalence was 91.5% (% of the fish found in that population that had sea lice). In 2003 (the fallow year) the prevalence was 36.1% (with some sample sites at a low of 27%). Then back to non-fallow conditions in 2004, the prevalence is back up again at 94.5% The data s very clear here, sockeyefry. Don't insult me by suggesting this is just a co-incidence.

However, it's in the abundance (more than the prevalence) where you see the most significant and clear results.

The abundance (mean # of lice per fish) stayed very low on outmigrating pink salmon smolts in 2003 - staying around 0.6 for the overall average.

In stark contrast - in the 2 adjacent non-fallowed years averaged 6.8 (2002) and 9.8 (2004) respectively, with some individual samples being up to 35 lice per fish. That's differences of up to between 11.3 and 163 times more lice found on the non-fallowed year than from 2003. If that's not "Clear" data, sockeyefry - then the moon's made of green cheese; and the world is flat.

Also as expected. Not a co-incidence.

NONE of this was relayed to the public, sockeyefry. Ever wonder why?

Anybody else want to guess?

 

[cuttlefish]

Sockeyefry your said;

quote:
Do either of you know anything about closed containment?

If you were really concerned about the wild salmon then you would also be advocating the beaching of the commercial and rec fleets.

Why are you only advocating stopping an activity in which you have no interest or requirement for, and not the one in which you have the interest?

When I refer to lawyers, I mean the attidude with which the research is approached. They are not asking what happens, instead they are saying this happens and set out to prove that it does. In other words, instead looking into possible effects of sea lice from farms, they already have determined that the farms are guilty, and then set out to find the evidence which supports this, and they ignore data sets which do not fit with their expected verdict. There is no science involved in a lot of the NGO research, just simply a few people who are trying to prove their opinions.

What does it matter what I know about closed containment? The recommendations to invest in closed containment R&D and transition the salmon farming industry didn't come from me, they came from the Special Legislative Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture, the Provincial Finance Committee and the BC Pacific Salmon Forum. If you have some indignation over those recommendations, why don't you take it up with them? However I will say that these recommendations appear to me to be an effort not to stop salmon farming activity as you suggest, but rather as a solution to allow it to go ahead without the negative impacts.
As for science and lawyering, it's not about whether some scientists think farms are guilty, that is not the point. They put forward s hypothesis and attempt to prove it through their research. That research is then submitted for publication and it gets reviewed by other scientists for methodology, accuracy, etc. before it is accepted. That's how science works. If you don't believe the research or the researchers, you can submit a rebuttal to the publisher. Rebutting here is the same as pi$$ing into the wind. (I think I said that earlier.)

And while I'm going on about the science debate, I found a read that I think you, agentaqua and maybe some others might be interested in. This guy doesn't seem to have have a bone to pick, but instead gives not only a provocative bit of insight into how science is being used today, but also suggests some solutions for the future. Not far from what you have recently been posting actually. Let me know what you think.
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/SpontaneousGenerations/article/view/2971/1089

 

[sockeyefry]

Cuttle,

You do of course realise that a number of peer reviewed studies by morton et al have been rebutted. It is not the research activity or the conclusions, it is the media reoporting of such reports which baffle me sometimes. How a headline be so far from the conclusion of the study is beyond me.

Thanks for the data Aqua. If the fallow worked, why was it not repeated? It seems to me that the route chosen does not impact a lot of farm sites. MH would just simply change their production schedules to meet the fallow periods. It isn't hard to do as long as you accept a possible reduction in harvest volume during a transition period. The giovernments both feds and ptrovincial place restrictions and change harvest limits all the time, why did they not do so in this case? I frankly do not understand why MH wouldn't have done this voluntarily as a good will gesture.

I know that they were working with CAAR, but I do not know if it is still in effect, and what the outcomes were.

Regarding Closed containment, it is not the solution that it appears to be on the surface. They have the potential to create more environmental damage than the net pens. It just seems that it is tossed around as a solution by people who do not understand the implications. Logically if the farms are causing a problem in the ocean , then putting them on sure is the solution. Not necessarily. I think that proper siting and management of net pens is a better solution.

 

[cuttlefish]

Yes sock, I'm aware of the rebuttals to Morton et al just as I'm aware of their responses to those rebuttals and I'm also aware of the rebuttals to Beamish et al and their lack of response. So, to follow up on my previous post, if your problem is with the media, you should take that up with them. The article I linked to in my last post recognizes the media's need to dress up science to appeal to their readership. I hope you take the time to read it.

The 2003 fallow wasn't repeated partly because the province had to fork out 300 grand and a new site at Humphrey Rock to MH in order to move the fish from Glacier Falls. Since that time nothing has been coordinated by the province or the companies with farms on that route to duplicate 2003. Such a coordination or area management plan is another recommendation to protect wild salmon in the BCPSF report. As I said before, I'm not holding my breath anticipating that Gordo and gang will move on the PSF recommendation.

 

[sockeyefry]

Cuttlefish,

MH is doing what the province has licensed them to do and should be doing it in the way in which the regs specify. If not, then they should be punished. However, if they are engaged in a lawful activity, licensed by the provinec, and the province decides to change the rules, then the company, any company would expect some sort of compensation.

If the fallow worked, then MH should as a good corporate citizen have followed up on this with the province. I do not know if they did, but it would seem logical to me that there could be a chance to negotiate a win win situation here. It is unfortunate that such a oppurtunity has been missed.

I've gotten to the point where I do not believe anything I see in the media. Call me cynical, but I have seen things reported that I have personally witnessed, and the nedia reports were dramatically different.

 

[agentaqua]

If the fallow worked, why was it not repeated?

Well, call me cynical, too.

In addition to the valid point raised by Cuttlefish re: compensation and a new site at Humphrey Rock, which is also a factor when one considers compensation for 10 other sites:

If the fallowing did work, and the government and industry admitted this either publicly or through their actions of repeating the fallowing – the government and industry would not be able to simultaneously deny that open net-cage technology was not having population-level effects on adjacent wild pink salmon stocks.

Instead the provincial government (BC MAFF) tried to hide the effectiveness of the 2003 fallowing by publishing a scientifically-embarrassing unsigned anonymous news release that stated there was really no fallowing as the overall Broughton farmed biomass stayed the same (see http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ahc/fish_health/Sealice/Prod_Fallowing_BA.pdf) w/o looking at:
1/ total numbers of caged fish or their respective lice loads (esp. gravid female lice), or
2/ their location on the migratory route, or
3/ the levels and types of lice on the outmigrating pink salmon as I just did above.

I was disgusted with the government officials that are supposed to be looking after the public's interests. I think they should be up on collusion charges.

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

Yes that is quite a lame rationalization.

Although it is incumbent on the government to regulate the industry, one which is situated on a public resource, and to provide for the protection of that resource, I think that MH should have voluntarily continued the fallow.

Most effects of seacages also impact the farm itself, and so it is in the farmer best interest to reduce these impacts. However in the case of the sea lice transfer, there is not really an effect to the farm, just an effect on the wild passing by.

I guess you are right Aqua, the only thing that I can find to explain why MH wouldn't voluntarily have continued the fallowing is pure arrogance, something which is unacceptable when you are pursuing an activity on a public resource.

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Agent,

Yes that is quite a lame rationalization.

Although it is incumbent on the government to regulate the industry, one which is situated on a public resource, and to provide for the protection of that resource, I think that MH should have voluntarily continued the fallow.

Most effects of seacages also impact the farm itself, and so it is in the farmer best interest to reduce these impacts. However in the case of the sea lice transfer, there is not really an effect to the farm, just an effect on the wild passing by.

I guess you are right Aqua, the only thing that I can find to explain why MH wouldn't voluntarily have continued the fallowing is pure arrogance, something which is unacceptable when you are

I actually agree with everything you stated here.

As far as the decision not to admit the effectiveness of the fallow:

we unfortunately need to remember that the government thinks from the sides of:

1/ who paid the cost of their previous election (i.e. campaign contributions)
2/ who is contributing to the BC Liberals,
3/ what are the effects of unemployment on a region,
4/ who gets pissed when they are laid-off, and will they then vote for the Liberals,

AND</u> lastly, but not leastly:

5/ liability and compensation

for this last point, we need to keep in mind that the government hires an army of highly-paid liars, oops I mean "lawyers" - so that the governments' biggest concern is liability and compensation, rather than fairness, transparency or reality.

1/ Liabilities - when it is proved that they are delinquent in their protection of the public resource (something that DFO also has to deal with), and

2/ compensation - for the fish farm companies if they cannot operate.

Since these same government lawyers (typically out of Victoria and Ottawa) are far removed from any on-the-ground reality of the ocean, fish-farming, the Broughtons, and fisheries in general; and they get paid well to confuse and bafflegab - they do not seem to give 1 sh*t about the long-term consequences of their clients actions. Man's greed has little conscience when making money is the only benchmark of righteousness. In their small, little lawyer world - that's their rationalization.

The consequences are left for someone else - someone else who is affected. The lawyers already got paid by their client the government to counsel them on how to confuse and bafflegab the public. Delay hard decisions until the last possible minute. That's how the game is played.

By then, they'll be another election, and maybe someone else has to deal with the mess or you'll have a large enough majority so that it doesn't matter what the whining is.

That's why they made the decision not to put farms up North in the mouth of the Skeena. Delay the bad decisions so that someone else has to take the political heat after the next election.

That's why they haven't moved on the fallowing.

Welcome to democracy in inaction.

 

[Dave H]

I've always liked this bit of observation.

"It is the history of civilizations that conservationists are always defeated, boomers always win, and civilizations always die. I think that there has never been, in any state, a conservation government, because there has never yet been a people with sufficient humility to take conservation seriously. This is natural enough. No man is intimately concerned with more than his lifetime, comparatively few men concern themselves seriously with more than a fraction of that time. In the last analysis all governments reflect the concerns of the people they govern, and most modern democratic governments are more deeply concerned with some brief, set term of office that with anything else. Conservation means fair and honest dealing with the future, usually at some cost to the immediate present. It is a simple morality, with little to offset the glamour and quick material rewards of the North American deity, “Progress.”


Roderick Haig-Brown

He had vision.
No politicians that I know of share that trait.

Too bad.



Take care.

 

[sockeyefry]

Do you think that net pens are possible with proper siting? By that I mean if the farms were put in areas in which they would have a lower impact, such as off the migration routes, would this be acceptable, or would the only thing acceptable be if they were on shore and out of the sea?

 

[agentaqua]

quote:Originally posted by sockeyefry

Do you think that net pens are possible with proper siting? By that I mean if the farms were put in areas in which they would have a lower impact, such as off the migration routes, would this be acceptable, or would the only thing acceptable be if they were on shore and out of the sea?

I think it's possible to lower the impacts, yes.

Is it enough to prevent population-level effects?

Maybe; or maybe not - in such a confined and developed (i.e. # of farms) a place as the Broughtons; especially when superimposed on a bad year with ocean conditions and climate change - it might not be.

But - let's look at it, shall we?

Looking back on the abundance (or the mean # of lice per fish) from the fallow verses the non-fallow years - the abundance stayed very low on outmigrating pink salmon smolts in 2003 - staying around 0.6 for the overall average.

That's not a bad average, but still may be getting close to the 0.7-1.0 lice per gram of fish lethal limit. There are sub-lethal effects at numbers slightly less than this. 0.6 is a number slightly less than that, if the fish averaged 1 gram at this time.

you would want to superimpose these numbers on the size of the fish. That would depend upon when they were sampled and how fast the fish grew.

The average weight of the fish by month in the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 were 0.4 g (March), 0.5g (April), 1.3g (may), and 2.3g (June). This means that for the months of March and April, the abundance should remain like 0.3 lice per fish or less; May 0.7 or less; and June 2 or less.

What happened in 2003?

Abundance mostly below 0.5, up until week 20 or so. The juvie pinks get considerably larger at this time - and can take more lice.

So, yes - it may be possible for the fallow to work.

The only catch (excuse the pun) - doesn't it take 18 months or so to raise an Atlantic in a pen?

How would you arrange a fallowing every spring, every year - when you actually need 18 months to raise fish to market?

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

Yes it takes 18 mopnths, but the fish do not have to stay in one spot for the duration. Smolt could be entered into the sites on the fallow route in the Fall and moved out in the spring to their final grow out sites. This of course would be at a higher cost, but it could be considered as assistance to wild salmonid enhancement, and maybe looked favourably on by the regulators and the sport fish community as a good will gesture.

MH owns several large boats which were designed for the purpose of moving fish.

It could mean reducing production, and which leads into the compensation issue. However, because they are using a public resource, MH should really be required to figure out how to maintain production without being able to use the sites selected for fallowing during the migration period. I think if they really thought about it and were willing to change, then they could figure out ways of raising the same fish with less sites, or atleast lessen the production reduction, and accept any reduction as a cost of being able to do business in the area.

The easy route for MH is of course to ask for a few more sites not on migration routes to compensate for the lost production on the migration routes. This I think should not be the Gov. first position, but MH should be required to rethink their operations.

 

[cuttlefish]

Surfing around MH's website, I noticed that all their farms in Tribune channel are now empty.

There is no icon for Glacier Falls right now so I am assuming it is not active.

Humphrey and Sargeaunts were both zeroed out in March.
http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/pdf/sea_lice/07_04_09_Humphrey.pdf
http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/pdf/sea_lice/07_04_09_Sargeaunts_Pass.pdf

Wicklow, at the mouth of Fife, has fish.
http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/pdf/sea_lice/07_04_09_Wicklow.pdf
I wonder if they are going to harvest them before long?
I wonder if other farms on the route are stocked? If not, there might be the chance to replicate 2003 this spring. If they are stocked, wild salmon could have safe migration all the way to Burdwood.

 

[agentaqua]

Seafood Intelligence, 17th April 2009

NEW BRUNSWICK salmon growers appoint new Executive Director; Starting June 1st

The Board of the New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association’s (NBSGA) was pleased to announce yesterday (April 16th) the appointment of Pamela Parker as its new Executive Director.

Pamela Parker is a native of Saskatchewan with a background in organizational and project management and marketing. Most recently Pam served as Managing Director of the BC Pacific Salmon Forum (BCPSF). The BCPSF was appointed by the Premier of British Columbia to provide policy recommendations that would improve the economic, social and environmental sustainability of wild salmon stocks and salmon aquaculture on BC’s coast. Following four years of research and dialogue, the Forum released its final report in February 2009. Prior to this role, Pam served as Executive Director for the BC Shellfish Growers Association.

“We are very pleased that Pam will be making the move to the east coast to represent our association’s interests and drive the long-term success of our industry,” said Nell Halse, President of the NBSGA. “Pam’s experience with government, the science community and community stakeholders as well as her commitment to the sustainability of both wild salmon stocks and the Canadian salmon farming industry, fit well with the objectives of our association. Our Board looks forward to working with her to realize those objectives.”

Pam Parker will assume her new duties as Executive Director on June 1, 2009 replacing Dr. Jamey Smith who left the position at the end of February to accept a new post with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

“Over the past four years of working with the BC Pacific Salmon Forum, I’ve had the opportunity to study the industry from many perspectives and have come to believe that salmon farming can operate in an environmentally sustainable manner while at the same time providing a healthy food choice and much needed economic activity in coastal communities,” said Pam Parker. “The salmon farming industry is always changing and improving and I’m looking forward to working with the members of the NBSGA and other association colleagues to support that evolution and also the growth of the industry in Atlantic Canada.”

The NBSGA represents the majority of salmon production in NB, including large and small producers, a number of service and consulting companies and the majority of the feed production in Atlantic Canada. The salmon farming sector contributes approximately $300 million to the province’s annual economy and is a major employer in Charlotte County.

Source: NBSGA

www.seafoodintelligence.com

 

[agentaqua]

Subject: Message From Alex! Please Read Hello All: The Federal government wants to know if Gordon Campbell intends to try and win back the right to regulate fish farms. As it stands, Marine Harvest filed a “notice of appeal” and the Province joined in this appeal by filing an “appearance”. This is an ambiguous state of affairs. While Gordon Campbell has not publicly appealed my Constitutional Challenge, he has reserved the right to send lawyers to defend the Province’s right to regulate and site fish farms. If the Province did not want salmon farms back, they would not have filed an “appearance.” The Province has no responsibility to protect wild fish, the Federal Government does. There is something you can do. Contact the Liberal MLA candidates running in this Provincial election and ask them what they will do if elected? Give up the right to regulate fish farms in the ocean, or fight to win this back. If they plan to give it up why have they filed an appearance in Marine Harvest’s appeal? You can find the Liberal MLA emails at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.bcliberals.com/ This is very important. Alexandra Morton

 

[agentaqua]

ECO, 6th May 2009

BC First Nations file Class-Action Motion to save wild salmon in the Broughton Archipelago

Devastation of Broughton Wild Salmon leaves British Columbia First Nations no alternative

Class-Action Motion filed

(Vancouver, May 6, 2009) The next step has been taken in the Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation's (KAFN) Class-Action law suit against the British Columbia Government for the devastation caused by open net-cage salmon farming in their Territories. The KAFN launched the law suit on February 4th, 2009 and today served a Motion for Certification.

Bob Chamberlin is Chief of the KAFN and the Representative Plaintiff in the court case. Chief Chamberlin explained, "Legal action is necessary given that intervention is urgently needed to save the wild salmon of our Territory, the Broughton Archipelago. Despite years of intensive efforts to engage the B.C. government to achieve improvements to salmon farming regulation and thereby reduce the impacts to wild salmon, the response has been to delay, deny and distract."

The wild salmon are fundamental to the cultural and spiritual integrity of the KAFN and to the ecological integrity of their Territory. When juvenile pink and chum salmon migrate out to the open ocean, they must run a gauntlet of open net-cage salmon farms which are breeding grounds for parasitic sea lice and disease. There is an ever-increasing body of peer-reviewed, published science confirming the severe impacts of these open net-cage farms and some stocks in the Broughton are facing extinction. Chamberlin referenced the study by M. Krkosek et al. from 2007, "Predictions have been made that, with sea lice eliminating up to 80 per cent of the annual wild salmon returns to the area, local extinction is possible by 2011. The impacts of open net-cage salmon farming continue to severely threaten the wild salmon that are essential to the survival of our distinct aboriginal culture."

In light of the rapid decline of wild salmon populations in the Broughton Archipelago, there is an increased urgency to seek solutions and the KAFN are pressing for the earliest possible certification hearing.

Chief Chamberlin relayed his disappointment in the continued failure on the part of the government to respond to KAFN concerns despite the New Relationship Initiative calling for recognition and respect of aboriginal rights. "Contrary even to the recommendations of the BC government's own advisory body, the Pacific Salmon Forum (PSF), the government has not consulted with us. A recent ruling of the British Columbia Supreme Court determined that the provincial regulation of fish farming is unconstitutional and must be reorganized. This presents an opportunity for dialogue but, while others appear to have been consulted, we have not been approached for our views. Our firsthand knowledge of the impacts of salmon farms in our Territories has not been recognized. Nor have our constitutional rights to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes."

He expressed his deep appreciation and respect for the support and efforts of the many others fighting for the survival of wild salmon but he is left questioning, "Why doesn't government realize what's at stake?"

Legal counsel for the KAFN are JJ Camp of the Vancouver-based Camp, Fiorante and Matthews and Krista Woodward of the Victoria office of Woodward and Company. The Motion for Certification is a step required under the BC Class Proceedings Act to seek the approval of the court for the case to proceed as a class action.

To schedule media interviews, contact:
Don Huff, Penasi Communication/Environmental Communication Options, at 416-972-7404 (Cell) 416-805-7720 or email huffd(at)huffstrategy.com.

The Certification Motion is available at: www.cfmlawyers.com


http://huffstrategy.com/MediaManage...tion-Motion-to-save-wild-salmon-in-/1606.html

 

[agentaqua]

Naturvernforbund, 20th May 2009

Complaint to OECD on Cermaq

Norges Naturvernforbund / Friends of the Earth Norway and the umbrella organisation ForUM[1] yesterday lodged a formal complaint against Cermaq’s salmon farming practices for the breach of a number of articles in OECD’s[2] guidelines for multinational companies concerning production sustainability, employment conditions and human rights. The Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry holds 43.5 percent of the Cermaq shares.


Protests against Cermaq in Canada


Cermaq is a multinational giant in industrial salmon farming with comprehensive operations in Norway, Scotland, Chile and Canada. The conditions for which the complaint is lodged apply particularly to the subsidiary Mainstream’s fish farming activity. These have taken place over a longer period of time and are still occurring, and have been pointed out to Cermaq from various quarters earlier. The lack of resolve from Cermaq to get to grips with these questionable conditions is the reason that Naturvernforbundet and ForUM now request an independent assessment of these breaches.

Notes:
[1] ForUM is a network of over 50 Norwegian NGOs working with environment, development and peace.
[2] OECD is The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Download the complaint here at:
http://www.naturvern.no/data/f/1/31/00/5_2401_0/Cermaq_klage_NNV_ForUM_18-05-09_(ENG)-1.pdf

Quote from complaint submission: Martin Blinde of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority’s national centre for fish and seafood in Bergen said; “I am surprised at and I have to say that I do not understand Cermaq’s attitudes. This is a discussion we had ten years ago in Norway. At that time the fish farmers doubted that lice from farmed fish threatened the wild salmon. Now it is no longer a topic for discussion. Everyone is in agreement about that, and the Norwegian aquaculture industry has constructively taken steps to remedy the problem” 12. The same applies in Chile where biochemist Carlos Pessot at NIVA’s office, asked himself why the Norwegian companies have not transferred Norwegian expertise to Chile.13

 

[agentaqua]

KAFN, 19th May 2009

Media Release

First Nations leaders confront Norway's hypocrisy

KAFN urge Cermaq to embrace the spirit and intent of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(Oslo, Norway - May 19, 2009) First Nations leaders, and Alexandra Morton from the Broughton Archipelago, are in Norway this week. The will meet with MPs in the Norwegian Parliament (Storting), representatives of the Sami people of Norway, financial analysts, scientists and Cermaq (Mainstream) shareholders.

Speaking prior to Cermaq's Annual General Meeting in Oslo (1pm Norwegian time on Wednesday 20th May), Chief Bob Chamberlin (Chairman of the Musgamagw-Tsawataineuk Tribal Council) said:

"Cermaq, as a Norwegian-owned company, is not conducting business in the Broughton Archipelago consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that the Norwegian Government signed onto in 2007 [1]. We have come here to Norway to expose the double standard of Cermaq's operations in relation to wild salmon impacts. By ignoring peer-reviewed science, Cermaq is being trigger-happy in Russian roulette with our peoples' wild salmon stocks".

Chief Robert Joseph, hereditary chief of the Kwicksutaineuk Ah-kwa-mish First Nation, added:

"The demise of wild salmon is tantamount to genocide because it reflects the demise of our culture, way of life and spirituality. Since the advent of salmon farming in our territories we have seen an apocalyptic decline in the state of our wild salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago. And because Norway is the world leader in salmon farming and the Norwegian Government is the leading shareholder in Cermaq we are asking for their moral leadership to bring about best practices and to mitigate environmental degradation".

Alexandra Morton, director of the Salmon Coast Field Station in the Broughton Archipelago, remarked:

"In light of actions taken to protect the wild salmon in Norway and numerous studies documenting Norwegian fish farms damaging Canadian ecosystems, why are the people of Norway standing by while these publicly supported Norwegian corporations export their catastrophic industry around the world? As a biologist, I see solutions, but the Norwegian salmon farming industry refuses to take responsibility and remove these industrial sites from the most valuable wild salmon habitat in Canada. It's still not too late to stop the collapse of wild salmon and social decay here in western Canada. But to do so, it will take the efforts of concerned citizens working across borders, to make it clear to the Norwegian government that salmon farms must not destroy the wild salmon arteries flowing into the coast of British Columbia."

[1]: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ai...claration-on-the-rights-of-indi.html?id=87024

 

[sockeyefry]

Agent,

Do you know how many first nations were represented and what percentage does this represent. It seems like Chief BOb is the only one I see in the headlines.