N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

[Charlie]

So you think I should leave my job, where I raise fish for market which are consumed instead of wild salmon, and take a position in an industry which almost entirely derives its income from the death of wild salmon - to help wild salmon?
Brilliant.

Actually, the answer to leaving your job is yes. It is easier to find a job now, while you are still working than waiting until you get laid off, which is just a matter of time - unless you want to wait and leave with your company when they decide to pull-out of BC.

You really don’t understand the Pacific salmon industry, do you? That industry “entirely” derives its income from the death of wild salmon – and certainly does help wild salmon, including hatchery production (if done right) and just might be more “Brilliant” than staying in that cesspool of a job you're currently in.

For all the "appalled" people out there, there seems to be a distinct lack of professional fish pathologists, virologists and otherwise trained experts who share the same view.
As for the "guaranteed income" - I'd love to see some evidence of it, it's been tossed around a lot lately but I have yet to see anyone show the numbers.

There are actually more “peer reviewed” studies from distinct professional fish pathologists, virologists and otherwise trained experts who share the same views, than that of your very few industry bias individuals including that one you posted from Dr. Marty, who didn't refer to any science and just gave a “in my professional opinion.” Without even getting into the disease debate, what do all those other peer reviewed studies conclude:

1. Atlantic salmon farming is NOT sustainable
2. “open net pen” salmon farming is harmful to the environment

You go to any “credible” environmental organization, not associated with your industry and see the same thing over and over. There really are probably 30 or so that now focus on ocean sustainability pretty much every one of them will tell you that wild salmon from Alaska is a best choice. The “open net pen” farmed salmon is in the red category – avoid. The reasons YOU are on that “avoid” actually has nothing to do with transmitting diseases to wild salmon. Just to give you a few reasons to find another job now is;

Environment:

1. All the excess food going out in the environment – everything they don’t eat dropping right through those pens,
2. all the pesticides going out in the environment, especially “SLICE” dropping right through those pens, and killing any/all Crustaceans – crabs, clams, oysters, etc in the area,
3. all the antibiotics going out in the environment
4. all their waste dropping right to that sea floor
5. and then those good ole Atlantic salmon escapes, who have established in BC rivers

Currently - Non-sustainable. That 1.2:1 ratio is BS… that is highly concentrated fishmeal and oil and still takes:

1. approximately five (5) pounds wild fish to grow one (1) farmed Atlantic.

Then you have the fats, minerals, vitamins, and micronutrients from the:

1. artificial feed diet
2. artificial coloring
3. grain products of corn, soy, which a lot of if not all is genetically modified
4. feather meal
5. chicken meal

Let’s not forget, research consistently demonstrates that Natural Astaxanthin outperforms Synthetic Astaxanthin in all of its antioxidant and biological functions. The Synthetic Astaxanthin used in your fish food is from mushrooms, which is actually not even approved for humans, but it’s okay to feed it to fish that humans consume?

1. Farmed salmon contains Synthetic Astaxanthin

Now how about that farmed salmon PR “hype”? Is their “farmed” salmon omega-3s really as good for you as they claim? I’ll answer that for you – it is NOT! You actually have good omega-3s and BAD omega-6s. It takes eating more of the good omega-3s to balance those bad omega-6s and that is NEVER going to happen eating “farmed” Atlantic salmon. With that increased grain-based diet the industry is bragging so much and hard about for sustainability, they forget to inform that also changes the fat ratio very remarkably in those farmed salmon. Check it out, as the approximately ratio is now one (1) omega-3s to one (1) omega-6s. There are “NO” omega-3s left to balance any of the bad omega-6s. BTW… Wild sockeye salmon have between six (6) - nine (9) omega-3s to one (1) one omega-6s, so you have:

1. more omega-6s in farmed salmon
2. less omega-3s

Last and most important is fish lot PR hype of what the Cohen Commission REALY stated. He was clear that “CANADA” has NOT “COMPLETED” any studies concerning transfer of disease to the “FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE” - ONLY! The Commission was not asked to address the industry as a whole and he did not.

There is quite a few peer reviewed studies concerning the transfer of diseases to and from wild populations. Just start looking! Once you start looking, you might also want to ask Chile how they are dealing with ISA that was transferred to their river stocks? Bet they tell you - IT’S BACK!!!

The government of Canada has openly stated “there is no value in the Pacific salmon;” Canada allowed those “open net pen” Norwegian companies into BC, against the their own scientific advice, for one thing and one thing only – GDP (MONEY)!

Think about this… the U.S. set back and did nothing on the east coast and ended up with ISA over there. Do you really believe Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho will let the U.S. set back and do nothing IF Norwegian ISA is ever confirmed in BC? So, the final and last reason to start looking for a new job:

1. Your - NORWEGIAN EXOTIC DISEASES!!!!

 

[Gear'n'beer!]

Excellent post Charlie.....

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Whoo boy, Charlie.
It's gonna take me a week to point out all the wrongs in that post.
You've hit about every single fallacy and piece of misinformation used against aquaculture out there.

 

[cuttlefish]

Whoo boy, Charlie.
It's gonna take me a week to point out all the wrongs in that post.
You've hit about every single fallacy and piece of misinformation used against aquaculture out there.

Just before you start in on that CK, could you send a reference or link to where your graphs of escapements in Clayoquot came from? Thanks.

 

[absolon]

Open message to fish farm supporters, workers, media shrills and self-appointed saviours who regularly troll or post on this site:

1/ It is up to your industry to prove that you either have no effects or risks to wild salmon stocks – and NOT us to prove that you do have effects. This is the basis of environmental assessments,

2/ The science is evolving, but there has been quite a bit of peer-reviewed and grey literature that indicates that open net-cage technology can pose significant risks to wild salmon stocks world-wide. The debate in the science is on how severe those risks are, and what is acceptable – rather than whether these impacts happen (we already discussed this on this thread). The fact that you don't like any particular researcher because their research puts your industry in a bad light is irrelevant and childish, and your approach fools nobody on this site, but yourselves.

3/ We already covered that all science (pro and anti) uses the same scientific principles and processes, with similar limitations and assumptions in their methodologies. If you attack the science that is termed “anti” to your cause w/o debating the specific issues with each specific paper – you are actually eroding your own support for any science that may be more forgiving towards your potential impacts – as well as demonstrating your ignorance and belligerence to everyone on this forum.

4/ Be careful when carrying burning swords – they cut both ways. If you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues and an inability to work with others – you are ill-suited for the more inclusive, open processes that are coming at you. DFO is developing new aquaculture advisory processes where you will be called on your BS – like this site. GET USED TO IT!!

In order to continue existing you will need to listen and respond openly and honestly to others; DFO is developing Aquaculture Management Advisory Committees (AMACs), which will advise the development of the Integrated Management of Aquaculture Plans (IMAPs) for finfish and shellfish. If you cannot listen and respond openly and honestly to others – you will be replaced with someone who will, and you can relearn the fetus position in your unemployed closet. Your days of of getting your way by shooting the messenger and being aggressive, combative and belligerent will soon be over. Thanks to the posters on this site who have demonstrated this behaviour to the readership on this site who care about wild salmon, and remember you are an example of how responsive, professional and mature (or NOT) your industry is.

4/ Open net-cage technology is on it's last legs in BC, and we need to transition to closed containment – and it will happen whether or not you like it or not – so why not get on board so you can survive?

Open response to all the chest thumping, trash talking self described saviors of the wild salmon:

1) It is up to you to actually establish that your claims and speculations are valid. There are an endless number of hypothetical scenarios in which salmon farming has deleterious effects on wild fish; enumerating them is not evidence that any of them are causing the demise of wild fish and is not the basis of valid environmental assessments.

2)The science is evolving but that is in spite of any contributions to the discussion you might make, not because of them. Attempts at propaganda based bullying may be effective here but it doesn't move the larger discussion forward. No-one in the industry has ever claimed that the farms have no effect nor are they interested in either stopping or ignoring the evolution of the science. Indeed, it is in the industry's best interest to be working with the most accurate understanding of the situation as is available. The problem is not a dislike of any particular researcher, it is an unwillingness to accept the shoddy work that is put forward as research when in fact it is no more than interpretations of selected information presented in support of a specific agenda.

3)All true science uses the same methodology, but not all that is claimed to be science is really science. Calling the questioning of the claims that the selective interpretation of what may or may not be facts is indeed science an attack on science belittles scientific methodology and erodes your own credibility more than it supports your interpretations.

4)I think you would be well advised to take your own advice here. The hostility displayed here to anyone who doesn't go along with the "party line" completely precludes any kind of rational, constructive discussion. It demonstrates not an inability but rather an unwillingness to work with others which is the worst kind of unsuitability for a collaborative process and will likely preclude any kind of positive contribution from those of your stripe to the new advisory panel.

4b)Open net farming is alive and well in BC and will continue to operate and improve it's operations and lessen it's impacts as more ways to do that are established through the collaborative process with regulators and scientists that the industry has participated in since it's inception in our waters. Because you refuse to participate in that collaborative effort doesn't mean it doesn't exist and because it arrives at different conclusions than you favour doesn't mean it isn't arriving at good conclusions. The industry will quite possibly transition to closed containment should that method of growing fish ever actually prove viable but you need to remember that it has not yet been accomplished and until such time as it has, the industry is going to continue to grow fish in pens in the ocean. Declaring otherwise is great rhetoric to motivate the true believers but is otherwise completely meaningless.

Though you declare your intent is to save the wild salmon your actions illustrate that your single motivation is to shut down the farming industry. So long as you choose to ignore all those other factors that affect the viability of the stocks in favour of hanging the blame exclusively on salmon farms you aren't contributing anything useful. The philosophy which says getting rid of the farms will save the stocks precludes any useful contribution to solving the real problems which those stocks face. Collaboration is a process where one works respectfully and with civility to take all of the inputs and consider them with a view towards developing workable definitions of the problems and viable, realistic solutions to those problems. It is not a process where a single group stands up and says we're right, you are all corrupt or liars or just plain ignorant and therefore, it's my way or the highway. There is no faster way to get your inputs marginalized and any possibility of contributing to solutions eliminated.

 

[Aces]

So Fishtofino, show us some evidence that salmon farms have had a measurable impact on mortalities of wild salmon here in BC during these last 30 or so years. You cannot and that is what CK meant by co-existence.
Now, exchange the words salmon farms with sports fishing or commercial fishing or aboriginal fishing. Different answer, no?

Log inRegister today Jump to: Newspapers Home News Sports Entertainment Health Travel National Post Victoria
7°C Partly cloudy
fino


Classified
classifiedsobituariescarsFind a jobhomesshopping Island Papers
Select... Alberni Pennyworth Alberni Valley Times CR Courier Islander Comox Valley Echo Cowichan Valley Citizen Harbour City Star Nanaimo Daily News Oceanside Star The Westerly Victoria Times Colonist


Spotlight






Bookmarks
Vancouver Island Economic AlliancePacific Rim Arts SocietyPacific Rim Whale FestivalUcluelet AquariumEdge to Edge MarathonDistrict of UclueletDistrict of TofinoAlberni Clayoquot Regional DistrictClayoquot Biosphere TrustPacific Rim National Park ReserveUcluelet Chamber of CommerceTofino-Long Beach Chamber of CommerceTofino Business AssociationPacific Rim Visitor CentreVancouver Island Regional LibraryVancouver Island Real Estate BoardVancouver Island UniversityTourism UclueletTourism Tofino
Washington researchers present findings of Clayoquot sea lice study
Jennifer Dart, Special to Westerly News
Published: Thursday, January 21, 2010
A group of Washington researchers have found sea lice on juvenile wild salmon samples in Clayoquot Sound and the levels they found were higher in close proximity to salmon farms.

The Wild Fish Conservancy -- a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving, protecting and restoring wild fish and the ecosystems they depend on through science, education and advocacy -- sent a team of three researchers to Clayoquot early last year to begin to identify potential causes for the "collapse" of wild salmon stocks in the area.

"Something in Clayoquot Sound is very broken," lead research Audrey Thompson told a crowd gathered at the Clayoquot Field Station Jan. 14.


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font:****As a place where not a lot of research has been done, she said the WFC saw this area as "a good place to fill a data gap."

The team came to answer the question of whether there are sea lice infestations on wild salmon in Clayoquot Sound, and also whether there is a correlation between the presence of infestations and the location of aquaculture farms.

The answer to both questions was yes, Thompson told the crowd during the presentation.

But Thompson stressed their data represents only one year in a complex life cycle in a complex environment. "This is just one piece of the puzzle," Thompson said. "We have to find pieces and put them together before we can make progress."

Clayoquot Sound is an ideal place to study the issue of declining stocks, she said, because of the pristine habitat of its river systems.

"Freshwater habitat is often blamed for salmon declines, but in Clayoquot Sound, freshwater habitat is abundant yet salmon runs are small, and shrinking," Thompson told the Westerly. "Salmon farms are the first non-pristine thing Clayoquot fish encounter, so studying their potential impacts first seemed like a logical place to start."

Many other potential factors can influence the health of juvenile salmon, she noted, including ocean temperatures, predators and food abundance.

Sea lice are also a naturally occurring parasite, but other scientists (notably in relation to aquaculture in the Broughton Archipelago) have linked the presence of salmon farms to the juvenile salmon infestation, Thompson said. Juvenile salmon, which are still developing, are most vulnerable to sea lice, she said.

In Clayoquot, the team collected 5,000 samples of juvenile chum and Chinook salmon over a five-month period from February to June.

They collected the fry in a large net that was towed behind their boat, put them in plastic bags for 30 seconds in order to count the lice on them. The fry were then returned to the water.

The team also looked at water temperatures and salinity levels at different depths in each of the areas they studied. The research will be peer reviewed and published, Thompson confirmed, and samples will be kept for future review.

By way of an example, Thompson detailed the team's findings in the Bedwell River system. She said in March they found few lice, and the numbers gradually increased as the season went on until in May roughly 80 per cent of the juvenile salmon leaving the Bedwell system had at least one louse attached to them.

.

 

[Dave]

Well, at least you didn't trot out a few of Morton's photos of Broughton pink fry ...

 

[agentaqua]

You can bait me, mock me and attempt to discredit me to your heart's desire...

Interesting that you take this perception rather than feeling a need to have a honest debate about what science we do have.

there is no conclusive evidence out there that confirms what you choose to believe about aquaculture.

Obviously the bar for what constitutes "the balance of evidence", and where the application of the Precautionary Principle is differerent between pro-inustry pundits and people who demonstrate care about protecting our natural resources.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an act.

This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.

One of the primary foundations of the precautionary principle, and globally accepted definitions, results from the work of the Rio Conference, or "Earth Summit" in 1992. Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration notes:

"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Canada is a signorary to the Rio Declaration and all the federal departments - inclusing Environment, DFO,CFIA, CEAA ad others are supossed to flow it. Just NOT the fish farmers - if you wish to listen to their BS.

Good background on application of Precautionary Principle for Canada at:
http://s.cela.ca/files/uploads/419precautionary.pdf

Trouble is - most fish farm pundits and workers are unfamilar with environmental assessments - ever wonder why?

Ever wonder why CK and other pro-farm lobbiests on this forum generally appear to lack the experience to even understand what a CEAA Assessement normally looks like for other industries (or even want to).

That's because DFO rigged the books so fish farms only have to do screenings - due to: “predictable and mitigable environmental effects”, which then omits mandatory public involvement and scoping during the assessment process.

A class screening may be conducted when a particular activity or type of project, and the full range of its potentially adverse environmental effects, have been fully identified. Class environmental screenings generally apply to projects which have predictable and mitigable environmental effects.

Public involvement is “discretionary” in a screening. To date, open net-cage applications are required to perform only a screening report, due to NWPA considerations, and not a comprehensive study report.

Environmental screening criteria not included in the screening report, mandatory in the comprehensive study report includes: · discussion of how the scope of the project and scope of the assessment were determined.

Scoping establishes the boundaries of an environmental assessment (what elements of the project to consider and include and what environmental components are likely to be affected and how far removed those components are from the project. Spatial boundaries should extend beyond a project's immediate site to include the area likely to be affected. Scoping aids in the “predictability” of the environmental effects;

YET - this is all that DFO used to require for siting criteria in lieu of a proper CEAA assessment:

· A finfish pen farm should be located no closer than a 1 km radius from the mouth of a minor stream populated by anadromous fish and no closer than 3km from the mouth of a major stream. Distances may be adjusted depending on wild fish populations.
· Facilities within a 5km radius of such streams must have prior approval of the Federal/Provincial Transplant Committee.
· Salmon net pens should not be located within 1 km of herring spawning areas designated by FOC as vital, major or important (Classification of Spawning Areas of British Columbia Herring). For sites proposed within areas designated as sometimes important or minor, consultation with the local Departmental office will be required to determine recent spawn distribution trends or to confirm the area classification.
· A finfish net pen shall be located so as to provide a minimum of 30 metres clearance from the edge of the approach channel to a small craft harbour, or a Department of Fisheries and Oceans wharf or dock.
· Net pens shall not be located within 125 metres of molluscan beds where there are or is the potential for recreational, native food-fish or commercial fisheries or within 125 metres of existing molluscan culture operations.
· Net pens facilities should have a minimum of 3 km distance between the lease boundaries.
· Net pens shall not be located over or within 50 metres of areas of sensitive fish habitat as defined by Section 34 (1) of the Fisheries Act. It should be noted that “fish habitat” is defined in the Act as: “spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish and shellfish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes”.
· Net pens or fish rearing facilities should not be located in areas where they would directly interfere with commercial, recreational or native food-fish fisheries. These fisheries include seine tie-up spots, gillnet drift areas, trap fishing areas, traditional trawl sites, bivalve shellfish beaches and areas of sport fish activity.

Few of these set distances have any validity in science or on site-specific oceanographic function. Many criteria are not defensible or responsible as a blanket approval process.

Fish swim far more than 1 km; often tens to hundreds of Kms downstream as smolts, migrating past some of the farm sites and then holding nearby for months while growing, and then migrating thousands of km to the Alaskan gyre and then back again as adults and tens to hundreds of Km back upstream.

Tidal effects often create back'n'forth sloshing of surface and mid-depths water in the water column are often 5+ km when your tide is +15-20 feet between high and low tides. That water could contain naupilar/copepidite stages of sea lice, viruses, pathogenic bacteria and sea lice theraputants from fish farms.

Yet - DFO is hoping how inadequate things really are wrt siting criteria continue to go unoticed.

This is the person to contact if you have questions/comments about the siting criteria for fish farms:

Todd Johansson
Aquaculture Management
8585 Wollason Street
Port Hardy BC V0N 2P0
(w) 250-902-2683
(c) 250-949-0838
(f) 250-949-6755
Todd.Johansson@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Why don't you contact him and ask him how valid the siting criteria and screening process really is?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Just before you start in on that CK, could you send a reference or link to where your graphs of escapements in Clayoquot came from? Thanks.

They came fom here, I entered them into Excel and graphed them (up to '07, the rest I got from enhancement summaries) - you are welcome to do the same and verify if you like.

http://www.clayoquotbiosphere.org/projects/2006/Clayoquot_Sound_Salmon_Review.pdf

 

[Sculpin]

They came fom here, I entered them into Excel and graphed them (up to '07, the rest I got from enhancement summaries) - you are welcome to do the same and verify if you like.

http://www.clayoquotbiosphere.org/projects/2006/Clayoquot_Sound_Salmon_Review.pdf

The current year is 2013. Just sayin'. Lots has happened since 2007. I would suggest to keep challenging Charlie so he will keep posting. We all missed him.

We are all still waiting for your reply to everything that was wrong with his latest post................

Cheers,
Sculpin

 

[Charlie]

Yes, the report is dated! Many things have changed; to include my beliefs. In 2007, I believed the massive amount of the logging observed in Canada was going to destroy your salmon runs. Now I KNOW those Norwegian owned Atlantic salmon “open net pens” will destroy EVERYONE’S “wild” Pacific salmon runs, including Alaska!

I am actually okay with dated material when it still addresses valid concerns still transpiring. IF, “I” was pro-feedlot, I certainly would NOT have used that article for a reference. That report very much brings up the logging problems mentioned; however, CK seems to overlook some of the other areas the report refers – like his own “fish farms”? I will accept this reference as coming from “distinct professionals” who are also “otherwise trained experts” who share the same view as many others and that would be listed in my previous post under:

2. “open net pen” salmon farming is harmful to the environment

Not going to post the entire report; however, will gladly share some observations and make comments in the [ ]:

MEGIN RIVER, MEGIN LAKE, TALBOT CREEK WATERSHEDS
Note: A fish farm operated for several years across from the Megin River at the northern end of Sulphur Pass from around 1986 to the mid-90’s in an area that was known as a prime fishing area for Megin River Chinook salmon. It was forced to close down and move due to damage and pollution to the bottom and area. There was also one on the north side of Obstruction Island across from the Megin a little further out the inlet which is now closed down as well. It was shortly after this that we noticed no further sign of Basking Sharks in the area where we had previously seen them every year, slowly cruising the surface waters feeding on fish. Basking Sharks are a mystery where they go when they aren’t feeding on the surface, but it was suspected that they “hibernated” on the bottom. One of the last sightings of Basking Sharks was off the entrance to the Megin River in 1997. S. Lawson

Jan. 2008: Ahousaht Fisheries reported a very poor Chinook run for 2007 and out of concern for this important fishery, asked for the removal of Mainstream’s Dixon Bay fish farm. (S. Hare)

[Yep… CK managed to provide a very good reference, as to WHY his operation should be shut down, known - “POLLUTION TO THE BOTTOM AND AREA”]


FLORES ISLAND CREEKS: COW CREEK; HOOTLA KOOTLA & RILEY COVE CK.
In his decision in B.C. Supreme Court, Judge MacLeod (Pt. Alberni) stated that “you have proved your case in law but if I allowed these charges to stand, it could affect other log booming grounds in B.C., therefore I dismiss the charges”. No appeal was forthcoming, in part due to costs and distance. The case did not go to a higher court. S. Lawson

[Kind of tells one where the government of Canada stands on protecting your environment and wild salmon – doesn’t it]

MOYEHA RIVER (& COTTER CREEK)
Fish farming is taking place in Herbert Inlet. Flood lights were reported throughout the night on a fish farm there in Sept. 2007

[It also looks like CK might have a future in wild” Atlantic fishery? You got some pretty good escapement trying to establish a “wild” Atlantic salmon spawning areas. This one is showing: 1994 = 5; 1995 = 2; 1996 = 17; 1997 = 1; 1998 = 9; 1999 = 4; 2000 = 1; 2001 = 28]

BEDWELL RIVER & URSUS RIVER (BEAR RIVER)
1998: Fish farms in Bedwell Sound had a major die off of Atlantic salmon due to lack of oxygen, warm weather and algae blooms in the summer of 1998. This caused the net pens to collapse under the weight of the dead salmon releasing the remaining sick and dying fish. Bloated fish and fish oil floated on the surface and salmon foam blew off the top of the water down into the inlet. Reports said only 7 fish escaped.

A number of adult Atlantic Salmon have been found most years in one or both of these rivers since 1993. There are five fish farm sites in Bedwell Inlet which have been the locations of escapes of Atlantic Salmon over the years. S. Hare

[As CK states, numbers don’t lie: 1993 = 1; 1994 = 2; 1995 = 10/1; 1996 – 27/7; 1997 = 6/3; 1998 = 14/2; 1999 = 12/3; 2000 = 4/1; 2001 = 34/ 31; 2002 = 2/12 that is 79 Atlantic salmon returning to the streams from YOUR “hatchery.” That was more than one of the “wild” returns!; 2006 = 1; 2007 = 4]

Holly crap man how did the 7 Atlantic salmon that escaped in 1998 come back three/four year olds totaling 79? You have got your own little Atlantic salmon hatchery going on there – what is up with that? I actually wish we could get that kind of a return on our 3 - 4 year old hatchery Chinook.]

2007-08: One escaped farmed Chinook was reported seen in the Bedwell in Jan. 08, a female ready to lay eggs. Chinook that are farmed (mostly by Creative Salmon Co. in Southern Clayoquot Sound) are either hatchery raised Big Qualicum River, Robertson Creek or Yukon River Chinook or a combination of these. The difference between wild Chinook and farmed fish is generally the size of the tail; wild salmon have a broader, larger tail whereas farmed fish don’t develop such a large tail due to lack of use and necessity and the edges of the fins are worn and rounded from rubbing against the net pen. S. Hare

[Absolutely one of the WORST things that can happen to a “wild” Chinook stock = “FARMED” Chinook interbreeding with the wild stocks!]



ATLANTIC SALMON SUMMARY and
COMMENTS ON FISH FARMING IN DFO AREA 24
Note: In an attempt to correlate escape figures from fish farms in this area with sightings of Atlantic salmon in the watersheds here, other research data came forward, some of which is included here.

History: Fish Farms first started in B.C. in 1984-85
Clayoquot Sound was one of the few areas of the west coast where no pulp mills or mining was occurring and the waters were relatively pristine. Oyster growers from the inside of Vancouver Island would bring their oysters to Clayoquot Sound to clean them out in order to be able to retail them without contamination.

The first fish farm in Clayoquot was in Dawley Pass on a log boom in 1984-85. Licenses in Clayoquot Sound were issued in 1985-86 to General Sea Fish Farming Company in Tofino Inlet.

In 1987, a farm at Saranac Island was operating and there was a hatchery at Mussel Rocks, using herring skiffs to harvest the fish. These fish farms were farming only Chinook salmon at the time.

The first Atlantic salmon farm started in 1992 and by 1994, Saranac, Mussel Rock, Rant Point, Bedwell and Fortune Channel all had Atlantic salmon farms in operation. This was due to the more rapid rate of growth of Atlantic salmon.

The first sightings of escaped Atlantic salmon in the rivers occurred in 1991. 90 Atlantic salmon were reported in 3 different rivers in Clayoquot Sound in 2002. See table.

There are at present (2006-07) 24 Fish Farm Licenses in Clayoquot Sound: Most of these are in operation, most are for Atlantics & Chinook, as well as Sablefish; there are no Sablefish Farms operating at this time.

In 2002, the B.C. Government lifted the moratorium on the expansion and placing of new fish farms on B.C.’s coast in spite of protests by Tony Knowles, the Governor of Alaska, where they consider Atlantic salmon to be an “invasive species”. He urged the BC government to reconsider its decision and accept the recommendations of the independent Leggatt Inquiry into salmon farming which included closed containment. The Gitanyow Chiefs of the Northern Tribes protested fish farms as well as Mainland Kwakiutl Tribes on the inside of Van. Island. Many farms in Clayoquot Sound are presently being enlarged and new sites are being established.

Atlantic Salmon Watch was established by DFO in 1992, however there are reports that it is no longer operational and it has not been updated since 2002. Andrew Thompson, who is in charge of this program, has not been reachable for this report nor has there been any response to reports of Atlantic salmon on the government site. This has been corroborated by Nuu Chah Nulth Fisheries Researchers. There is now genetic research underway by DFO to create monosexual salmon and fast growing, hormonally altered Coho as well as other fish. (See DFO Aquaculture Research at www.pac.dfo-mpc.gc.ca)

Fish Farming Companies operating in Area 24, Clayoquot Sound:
Mainstream (EWOS) owned by Cermaq in Norway has 15 salmon and 6 sablefish fish
farming lease sites in Clayoquot Sound. Creative Salmon has 6 farms: 4 are active, 2 are
fallow at present. Marine Harvest has one site in Sydney Inlet.

Creative Salmon (predominantly Japanese owned):
EWOS Mainstream Canada owned by Cermaq (predominantly Norwegian owned)
Nutreco
Pan Fish (Norwegian)
Tofino Aquafarms

For all the "appalled" people out there, there seems to be a distinct lack of professional fish pathologists, virologists and otherwise trained experts who share the same view.

YOUR own reference is supporting and showing “professional fish pathologists, virologists and otherwise trained experts who share the same view.” The Governor of Alaska; the independent Leggatt Inquiry recommend getting rid of the “open net pens” and convert to “closed containment.” The Gitanyow Chiefs of the Northern Tribes and the Mainland Kwakiutl Tribes oppose them. Even your own Ahousaht asked for one of YOUR feedlots to be moved, as they KNOW it is killing their Chinook fishery! GREAT REFERENCE - keep them coming!

BC really needs to get those “foreign owned” “cesspools” – OUT of their waters!

 

[agentaqua]

Ottawa withholding reports on B.C. wild salmon

MARK HUME

VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Apr. 14 2013, 6:59 PM EDT

Last updated Monday, Apr. 15 2013, 10:01 AM EDT

Key scientific documents needed before the department of Fisheries and Oceans can implement its plan to save British Columbia’s wild salmon have been held up in Ottawa for a year.

The documents, concerning sockeye conservation units on the Fraser River, were withheld from the Cohen Commission even though they were substantially ready for release at the time the federal inquiry was under way.

Fisheries managers planning catch limits for the 2013 season, which has yet to start, have had to do so to this point without knowing what the reports contain.

The reports, confidential draft copies of which have been obtained by The Globe and Mail, show that seven of the 24 conservation units in the watershed have been designated as “red zones” with another four rated red/amber. That classification means the salmon populations in those areas are considered at risk of extinction.

The reports show most of those red zones are located at the heads of distant tributaries, indicating the salmon that travel the farthest in the Fraser River system are having the hardest time surviving. That raises questions about the impact of climate change because the salmon that are in trouble are exposed to the warmer river temperatures longer.

Only five of the conservation units got “green zone” status, which means they are healthy, and six were amber or amber/green, at low risk, but of concern. Two populations weren’t rated because of a lack of data.

The stocks were rated when 34 top fisheries scientists and managers retreated for a three-day workshop in November, 2011. They analyzed a variety of ways to assess the status of conservation units and came up with a method that would allow DFO to evaluate all salmon conservation units in the province. The approach leads to long-term projections of stock health, not just immediate snapshots.

The documents are considered to be one of the final pieces that need to be in place before DFO can implement its wild salmon policy, a strategy that has been in development for nearly 10 years.

DFO has refused to release the documents, saying they are still in draft form – even though the reports were effectively completed in the spring of 2012.

“We only release final copies of reports. At this time, I have no indication of when they will be finalized,” Tom Robbins, a spokesman for DFO, stated in an e-mail last week, when asked for the documents.

A fisheries researcher, who didn’t want to be named, said scientists suspect the government is delaying the release because it doesn’t want to have to respond to the red-zone ratings.

“It’s clearly political,” he said of the delay. “I know they are not held up by scientific discussion. I can only guess that recognition several of these units are in the red zone – and therefore require recovery plans – is giving people angst.”

He said the government’s wild salmon policy can’t be implemented until the documents are finalized and the analytical method outlined in them is adopted by managers.

“It’s a real loss to have these documents delayed,” he said. “It means we’ve lost another year in responding to what these documents show [about red zone stocks].”

He added “it is debilitating … it is so frustrating” for scientists to see important research tied up in the bureaucracy.

And he said withholding the finalized publication of such work amounts to muzzling scientists because it suppresses their research.

“Someone should draw this to the attention of the commissioner,” he said, referring to Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault, who last month announced an investigation into complaints that government scientists are being silenced.

When then-fisheries minister Geoff Regan announced in 2004 that DFO was going to develop a wild salmon policy, he said it marked “a new era” that would transform salmon management on the West Coast.

But nine years later B.C. is still waiting for that policy to be implemented – and it can’t be until the documents DFO has been sitting on for a year are adopted for use.

 

[agentaqua]

Closure of fisheries’ libraries called a ‘disaster’ for science

By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News April 14, 2013

The libraries are home to the 50 illustrated volumes from Britain’s Challenger expedition that sailed the seas in the late 1800s exploring the mysteries of the deep.

The shelves heave with reports detailing the DDT pollution that wiped out young salmon in New Brunswick’s “rivers of death” in the 1950s. And they contain vivid reminders of native fisheries, Canada’s once vast cod stocks and the U.S. submarines that prowled the quiet fjords along the B.C. coast in the 1940s — history that is being packed into boxes as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans “consolidates” its world-class library collection.

Seven DFO libraries across Canada are to close by the fall, including two that have been amassing books and technical reports on the aquatic realm for more than a century.

The department said “all” the materials will remain available either online or through inter-library loans.

But critics said digital and remote access is no replacement for the real thing. They also fear valuable historical information will be lost in the purge, or “weeding,” now underway as the seven libraries are dismantled.

“It is information destruction unworthy of a democracy,” said Peter Wells, an ocean pollution expert at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who describes the closing of the libraries as a “national tragedy.”

Eric Mills, a specialist in the history of marine sciences at Dalhousie University, sees it as a “disaster” that will stifle research.

While Jennifer Hubbard, a science historian at Ryerson University in Toronto, said it could make fisheries’ science “a lot less effective.”

They also noted that one of the libraries being closed opened just last year – a climate-controlled facility at the St. Andrews Biological Station in New Brunswick built at a cost of several million federal tax dollars.

“They’ve invested all this money in a beautiful new library and now they want to close it down,” said Hubbard. “It just doesn’t make any economic sense.”

One thing DFO and the critics do agree on is that the libraries contain one of the world’s most comprehensive collections of information on fisheries, aquatic sciences and nautical sciences.

The libraries house thousands of reference books, and decades of technical and station reports on everything from beluga whales in the Arctic to oil spills on the east and west coasts. They also contain rare books like the 50 volumes produced after the H.M.S. Challenger expedition that explored the depths the world’s oceans from 1872-76 and turned up thousands of sea creatures new to science.

DFO officials were not available for interviews on the library situation, but the department’s media office said by email that the closures make sense in the increasingly digital world.

“The growing willingness of Canadians to look online, coupled with an increasing presence of information online, including electronic scientific journals, enable the department to consolidate its library resources,” said Melanie Carkner, a DFO media relations adviser.

She said consolidation of the seven libraries is to be completed by the fall. Collections now located from Vancouver to St. John’s, Newfoundland, are moving to what DFO is calling its “primary” libraries — one at a research institute in Sidney on Vancouver Island, the other at an institute in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Two “subsidiary locations” in the Ottawa region and Sydney, N.S., will support the Canadian Coast Guard.

A catalogue of the DFO holdings is online, and Carkner said “materials will be scanned and emailed or shipped to requesters” or made available through inter-library loans.

“All currently available resources will remain available to employees and the public after the initiative is implemented; the only change is the process to search for and acquire them,” she said.

Mills, at Dalhousie, doesn’t buy what he calls DFO’s “smoke and mirrors.”

“It sounds like an efficiency expert’s dream,” said Mills, “but as far as scientific use of those collections goes, it sounds like a disaster.”

He has worked extensively with the 100-year-old collections in the libraries being closed in Nanaimo, B.C., and St. Andrews, NB. Most of the historical materials and reports have not been digitized and won’t be anytime soon, Mills said.

And he and his colleagues don’t expect inter-library loans will be easy or inexpensive.

“A great deal of material will be out of sight, out of action,” said Mills.

Even worse, some of the material could be lost, said Hubbard, who has worked with the collection in St. Andrews that contains reports on the local fisheries and marine environment that go back decades.

“I am really worried that they won’t bother to move it all because there is just too much of it and so they will just dump it,” said Hubbard.

While Carkner said “all” the materials in the libraries will remain available, insiders say a lot material is not being kept.

“We are weeding,” one DFO librarian, who asked not to be identified, told Postmedia News.

Scientific journals available over the Internet are being sent off for recycling. And many books are headed for “removal or retirement” because they are considered obsolete or surplus.

A list of holdings at the St. Andrews library, now being circulated, tags books and material for “discard” in red, while green and pink tags indicate material to “keep.”

It will likely be a decade or more before all DFO’s technical reports are all digitized and available online, the librarian said. But most of the reference books and materials in the DFO libraries – like Russia’s fishing monograms – cannot be digitized by the department because of copyright restrictions.

“They have about 10,000 holdings (in St. Andrews) and about 70 per cent can’t be digitized for copyright reasons,” said Caroline Davies, chair of Save our Ocean Science, a group trying to halt the closure in St. Andrews.

“The library is part of the marine resources network in southwest New Brunswick,” said Davies, noting that the brand new facility is used by not only federal scientists but by students and staff from the nearby university, college and fisheries industry.

Once it closes, the library users will either have to drive five hours to retrieve books from the DFO library in Dartmouth or ask DFO to send books back to St. Andrews on loan. “It’s ludicrous,” said Davies.

Wells see the library closures as more evidence of the way the federal government is “eviscerating” aquatic science by cutting jobs and eliminating programs, labs and services. “Libraries cannot simply be replaced by digitized collections,” he said.

The scientists are particularly worried about DFO’s station reports and documents have not been published elsewhere and will likely never be put online.

“It’s somewhat disparagingly referred to as the grey literature but there is a hell of a lot of interesting material in there from the point of view of people interested in the long-term history of the fisheries,” said Mills.

As an example, Wells pointed to reports from the St. Andrews station that helped Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring, document how DDT killed young salmon in the New Brunswick rivers in the 1950s. She described the deadly effects in the chapter, Rivers of Death.

Carkner said the grey literature, like the other library holdings, “will be available through a variety of means, including online.”

She could not say how much money DFO will save by closing the libraries, how many library jobs are being eliminated, or how much the department is spending on digitization. And she couldn’t say if scientists and the general public would have to pay for inter-library loans.

As Davies pointed out: “Same-day courier, that isn’t cheap.”

mmunro@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/margaretmunro

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

 

[Dave]

Agent, bad news for sure but what has this to do with salmon farms?
Charlie, how are you doing ridding Washington State of it's salmon farms?

 

[agentaqua]

Agent, bad news for sure but what has this to do with salmon farms?

Nothing directly - unless you consider input into the Cohen Commission was restricted. Hard to say if this information would have changed Cohen's report - or what else has DFO kept from Cohen....

 

[Dave]

Nothing directly

Thanks for that .. but are you suggesting some form of conspiracy?

 

[agentaqua]

Conspiracy? No - nothing with fish farms. Just your typical upper-level DFO management decisions to hide information when asked for by a court order - in this case. Unfortunately we are so overwhelmed and desensitized by corruption, collusion, deceit, lies and just poor management decisions by government (esp. DFO) - we don't even get upset anymore. Sometimes we don't even pay attention. Guess DFOs strategy is working...

 

[sockeyefry2]

Market outlook good for Alaska salmon fishers
Canada: Market conditions appear favorable at this point partly due to increasing prices for farmed salmon, expert says


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Odd Grydeland

FishfarmingXpert has previously complemented the competency of Professor Gunnar Knapp from the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska in Anchorage with respect to non-biased reporting about the state of economics related to both farmed and wild salmon resources. At this time of the year, much excitement is building among salmon fishers in the North Pacific- who usually end up selling their catch to processors or wholesalers without having much input into the determination of the final selling price. Some salmon fishers have managed to create a niche market through the branding of products from a specific watershed like the Copper River, and others have been able to obtain a premium by adopting harvesting methods used in the farmed salmon industry, but in general, salmon fishers in the U.S. and Canada are subject to market forces often beyond their control.

This year, Alaska Fish Radio- which is supported by Ocean Beauty Seafoods- is “celebrating 103 years of partnership with Alaska’s coastal communities”. A recent report by Laine Welch describes the reason why Professor Knapp is optimistic about the market situation for Alaska salmon fishers this year- especially those who will be fishing for Sockeye salmon;

Alaska trollers have been out on the water for king salmon all winter, and in a few short weeks, the 2013 salmon season will officially kick off at Copper River. That was the take home message by University of Alaska fisheries economist Gunnar Knapp at a meeting in Dillingham, Alaska. Knapp cited three key factors for the short term outlook: lower sockeye harvests with strong demand, strong canned salmon markets with low inventories, and strengthening prices for farmed salmon. Alaska wild salmon tends to follow the price trends for farmed Atlantic salmon, which now accounts for two-thirds of world supply. Other positive trends for Alaska show a steady increase in the value of pink salmon – nearly two-thirds of the pink pack was frozen in 2011 instead of going into lower value cans – that compares to less than 20 percent being frozen in the late 1990s.

Almost all of the frozen pinks go to China – but not to be eaten by the Chinese. The salmon is made into fish portions and entrees and other products and sent back to markets in the US and Europe. Knapp’s 10 year overview shows that the dockside value of Alaska’s salmon harvests jumped from $164 million ~€ 125 million) in 2002 to $603 million (~€ 460 million) in 2010. The wholesale value surged from $466 million (~€ 355 million) in 2002 to $1.5 billion (~€ 1.14 billion) in 2011. He points out that there has been significant inflation, and a dollar had 30% higher purchasing power in 2002 than it did in 2012.

Knapp credits the good showing by the Alaska salmon industry since 2002 to sustained and effective niche marketing, diversifying and expanding markets, new products, improved quality, and increased appetites for salmon around the world. But going into the 2013 salmon season, he always cautions that only one thing is for sure – The most certain thing is that something will happen to surprise us.

Last year’s preliminary numbers show that the Alaska salmon fishery netted some 286,200 tonnes of salmon that was worth about $ 506 million (~€ 386 million) or $ 1.77 (~€ 1.35) per kilo. Of this, about 95,900 tonnes were sockeye salmon, which sold for an average price of $ 2.56 (~€ 1.95) per kilo.
Publisert: 15.04.13 kl 06:45

 

[tincan]

Salmer Farmers/supporters on this forum. Please help me understand the difference between the $800 million you contribute to the "Provincial Economy" and the "over 6,000 people employed in direct and indirect jobs" that the first website states and article below that states salmon farming contributes $8.5 million to GDP and only 1,700 total acquaculture (salmon farming, shellfish, etc) jobs. If $800 million is the total value of all farmed fish raised in B.C. but only $8.5 million stays in B.C. and the rest goes elsewhere are the ads we see on TV not incredibly misleading/fraudulent. Ditto with the jobs. Before I say anything else I would like to give you a chance to explain in case I'm missing something. Thanks

From - http://www.salmonfarmers.org/about-salmon-farming

About salmon farming

Salmon farming is a vital part of the health of BC’s coastal communities, which is remarkable considering that it is relatively new in this province. Our industry employs over 6,000 people in direct and indirect jobs, and contributes more than $800 million annually to the provincial economy. Today, we produce about 75,000 metric tonnes per year, making farm-raised salmon BC's largest agricultural export. Salmon farms operate according to very high and exacting standards. In fact, aquaculture is the most strictly regulated agricultural industry in the province.

VERSUS

From: http://thecanadian.org/item/2042-ti...tion-ndp-cohen-morton-suzuki-isa-virus-norway

As the BC election approaches, the Norwegian-dominated aquaculture industry suddenly finds itself swimming upstream.

Despite mounting evidence of its impacts on the marine environment - and over significant public and First Nations' protest - the farmed salmon lobby has managed to maintain its controversial open net pen operations for decades, relatively unopposed at the political level.

Until now, it appears.

A series of significant events over the past few months have left the industry increasingly vulnerable to a regulatory crackdown.

The first major blow to the industry came in October of last year, when Justice Bruce Cohen got tough on the industry in the final recommendations of his 2-year judicial inquiry into collapsing Fraser River sockeye stocks. While he acknowledged that no "smoking gun" emerged from the exhaustive $25 million investigation, aquaculture was singled out as a key suspect.

Cohen's recommendations to protect wild salmon from open net pen salmon farms included:

Prioritizing the health of wild salmon over suitability for aquaculture when siting farms

Conducting more research into diseases that may be impacting wild salmon

Properly implementing the Precautionary Principle and removing farms in the Discovery Islands region (noted as particularly dangerous to migrating salmon runs) should more definitive evidence come to bear that they cannot safely coexist with wild fish.

It would take some six months for Cohen's non-binding recommendations to register politically - but boy are they starting to now.

First, in late March, Liberal Premier Christy Clark came out with an unexpected commitment to implement a number of Cohen's recommendations. Clark vowed to cap future open-net salmon farms in the Discovery Islands, a critical wild salmon migratory route. Liberal Agriculture Minister Norm Letnick stated, "[Cohen] basically says we should use the Precautionary Principle and what we're doing today as a government is agreeing with him."

If the salmon farmers weren't sweating before, this will surely have caught their attention. This is, after all, a government which has proven overwhelmingly sympathetic toward the industry throughout the past decade - even going as far as reimbursing it for environmental fines collected by the NDP.

Though a court case won a few years ago by independent biologist Alexandra Morton and her lawyer Greg McDade forced the federal government to take back the regulation of fish farms, the province retained power over the licensing and location of farms. Thus a change in policy at the provincial level could still spell trouble for the industry.

No sooner had Clark issued her tough talk on salmon farms, than NDP environment critic and likely future minister Rob Flemming moved to one-up her. Flemming told CBC radio, "They've been missing in action on this file for so long that to say on a friday afternoon six months after justice cohen delivered his report that they deign to agree with his recommendations just shows that they have not paid considerable attention to this." According to the CBC story, "Flemming says the NDP would initiate a review of the issue including looking at banning open net fish farms along key salmon migration routes."

Not just capping new farms, but removing and banning existing ones. That's about as close to justice Bruce Cohen's prescriptions as any party - federal or provincial - has come to date.

Days later, NDP Agriculture Critic Lana Popham - also a leading candidate to take up the same portfolio in Cabinet - posted a statement on her facebook page, relaying the NDP's developing policy on the issue. As environment and agriculture ministers respectively, Flemming and Popham would be the new government's point people on the file - their comments here are deliberate and significant.

Popham's preface to the policy statement suggested the public campaign for aquaculture reform is not going unnoticed. "Thank you to all the salmon warriors out there," Popham wrote. "You've directed a lot of barbs our way recently, but your efforts to push political parties to do whatever is necessary to protect wild salmon is a great contribution to BC. Keep it up!"

The statement itself denotes the party's likely framing of the issue going forward - i.e. addressing the economic risk-reward proposition: "[Wild salmon] is important for our coastal ecology, for the wild and sports fishing economies and particularly for First Nations. We also recognize that BC has an aquaculture industry that creates direct and indirect employment in our coastal communities and that it is incumbent on all to make sure the industry has minimal impact."

The statement continues:

New Democrats have clearly stated that if we form government in May, we will work with the DFO to act on the recommendations from Justice Cohen including:

regularly revising salmon farm siting criteria to reflect new scientific information about farms on or near Fraser River sockeye salmon migration routes as well as the cumulative effects of these farms;

explicitly considering proximity to Fraser River sockeye when siting farms;∙

limiting salmon farm production and licence duration;∙

using the precautionary principle to re-evaluate risk and mitigation measures for salmon farms in the Discovery Islands, including closing those farms that are determined to pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye.

In addition, we will maintain the existing moratorium, introduced in 2008, on new fish farm licenses on the North Coast.

The NDP's repositioning on the file comes following a new wave of public interest in the subject. Salmon Confidential, a 70-minute documentary which tracks Alexandra Morton's research into viruses impacting both farmed and wild fish, has reached over 100,000 people online since its release last month. It is currently filling halls around the province during a series of pre-election screenings. These events are drawing in high-profile speakers such as David Suzuki and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, the Harper Government did an about-face recently, agreeing to take part in and help fund a new large-scale program to test for viruses likely connected with fish farms. The work is being led by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans geneticist, Dr. Kristi Miller, whose leading-edge research was a key focus of the Cohen Commission.

Miller made global headlines when, prior to her subpoena by Justice Cohen, she was muzzled from speaking to media about her work. From recent interviews she's given on this new research program - co-sponsored by Genome BC and the Pacific Salmon Foundation - it appears, at least for the time being, that muzzle has been removed.

The aquaculture industry should be concerned about these developments, not just because of what this new research may uncover, but because it demonstrates that even the Harper Government has been forced to change its approach to public concerns surrounding salmon farms. That includes a recent federal report suggesting it's time to get serious about moving to closed-containment technology, which separates farmed fish from wild.

Finally, the industry should be concerned that the jig is up for the defense upon which it traditionally falls back - namely, the "jobs" argument. Recent data confirm that local economic benefits from aquaculture simply pale in comparison to the industries it puts at risk.

For instance, in 2011, according to DFO and Stats BC, sport fishing produced revenues of $925 million, contributing $325 million to BC's GDP and 8,400 direct jobs. Compare that with the Norwegian-dominated aquaculture industry, which produced $469 million in revenues (that's for all aquaculture, of which salmon farms are only one component). Salmon farms specifically contributed just $8.5 million to our GDP.

end of part 1...

 

[tincan]

start of part 2....

That's because they invest very little locally in plant and equipment and produce only a fraction of the 1,700 relatively low-wage jobs across the entire aquaculture sector - which includes shellfish and other finfish. Moreover, the profits flow out of BC to foreign shareholders.

That paltry $8.5 million figure was down 8% from the previous year, and based on reports of numerous farms in the Campbell River area having been fallowed over the past year - for problems left unexplained by the industry - we can expect the 2012 numbers to slide even further.

By contrast, the province's $13.4 Billion tourism industry (up 44% since 2000) is built largely on BC's "Best Place on Earth" / "Supernatural BC" brand, which depends greatly on wild salmon and produces vastly more jobs than do salmon farms. The provincial NDP is already showing signs of grasping these facts and understanding how they can be used to frame industry reforms.

In other words, the final fig leaf protecting the industry is about to be swept away in the coastal breeze.

It remains to be seen, post-election, where a new NDP government goes with its aquaculture policy, what these new tests yield, and how the Harper Government reacts to them. The industry has proven as prone to escape as the creatures it rears. Yet, for the first time in a long time, the tide is clearly turning against the Norwegian farmed salmon lobby.

Catch Alexandra Morton and David Suzuki at a presentation and discussion of Salmon Confidential this Thursday evening, April 18, at Vancouver's Stanley Theatre.