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

[sockeyefry2]

BC fish farmers’ relations with government questioned
Canada: Environmental group goes fishing for ammunition to be used against the province’s salmon farmers, but finds little of value


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Odd Grydeland

What the activists don’t realize is that the relationship between two veterinarians is not much different than that between two lawyers- client confidentiality is a basic principle of importance to both professions. And in a recent article in the Times Colonist, Judith Lavoie explains that fish farmers in British Columbia have already released more information about the health of their fish than what they are legally required to do;

In the ongoing skirmishes between salmon farmers and environmental groups, fish farmers appear to have a powerful ally in the provincial government, says Wilderness Committee campaigner Torrance Coste. A Wilderness Committee freedom-of-information request to the provincial Agriculture Ministry, asking for information on disease outbreaks on salmon farms between 2010 and 2012, produced 300 pages of emails and memos, many documenting communications strategies after diseases are discovered on farms.

Emails from Gary Marty, ministry fish pathologist at the Animal Health Centre, ask company veterinarians for the go-ahead to release specific information about the outbreaks to media. “May I have permission to disclose information from the medical records about the two Mainstream outbreaks,” says an email from Marty to Mainstream Canada veterinarian Peter McKenzie. “If you want to provide partial permission, let me know and I can work around that. Otherwise, I will stick to information provided in the press releases.” “I believe the release serves as good evidence of a very concerning relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture, who are supposed to be a neutral monitoring and oversight body, and the fish farming industry,” Coste said of the information found in the FOI.

However, Mary Ellen Walling, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association executive director, said the documents show a good working relationship between the industry and government, especially after infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) was discovered at Grieg Seafood and Mainstream Canada farms. “I think those pages show a good level of co-operation, a high level of transparency and a lot of public outreach,” she said.

Coste, referring to the email from Marty, said he finds it alarming that ministry staff are asking for permission before releasing information that should be public. “This information pertains to disease outbreaks on private, open-net fish farms located in the ocean environment — a public entity,” he said.

“The presence of pathogens and viruses in the ocean and the discovery of these diseases by government scientists should always be public knowledge, and the fact that our scientists are seeking permission from industry to release this public knowledge is very worrisome.”

IHN, which is endemic in wild Pacific salmon but does not make them sick, can kill Atlantic salmon.

Walling said the request for permission was professional courtesy between veterinarians and the companies had already released information about the outbreaks. A statement from the agriculture ministry said the ministry works with the “federal government and aquaculture operators to monitor for all possible diseases and supports the implementation of a prompt, co-ordinated and science-based response when required.”

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is responsible for overall regulation of salmon farms. “The [agriculture] ministry has no statutory authority to compel samples from fish farms for diagnostic analysis. All submissions from the farms for diagnostic testing are voluntary,” says the ministry statement.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Agent,

Here's something to ponder... With DFO responsible for aquaculture licensing in BC, and not the province, this means that Aquaculture now comes under the fisheries act. Which means it is now protected by the Fisheries Act the same as any other fishery.

In other words, DFO has to protect aquaculture from other actvities the same way it has to protect fisheries.

So what Morton actuially won was protection for Aquaculture under DFO and the Fisheries Act.

I know, I can hear the laughter now, DFO protection that's a hoot, but it will be intersting to see how this plays out.

 

[agentaqua]

Interesting that the farm pundits all utilize the same speaking notes. Is everyone cribbing from the BCSFA web site, or does the BCSFA pay for Grydeland to think this stuff up – or do you all hang at Mary-Ellen's place?

IF Marty is INDEED “prohibited by his professional code of ethics” shouldn't that code extend to wild fish, too? Shouldn't ethics also relate to his job as a public official and his duty to the public? Like I keep saying – our government officials that regulate the industry often forget who they are supposed to be working for.

Let's run with this “professional code of ethics” for a little longer shall we?

If Marty's assertion that he was “like a doctor” then lets use a similar analogy: if Marty's patient had TB, and told Marty he was getting on a bus or a train or a plane where there would be increased likelihood of transmission to a dense population of uninfected people – would Marty then claim “ethics” and keep his mouth shut and hide his data? Maybe give the guy his bus pass?

I doubt it. I believe there are probably laws against that.

BUT – if it's a fish – out of sight - out of mind. Forget that many people rely upon fish for their livelihoods and protein.

Another analogy – all the info from CFIA and other agricultural health professionals on how to contain an outbreak on a farm state VERY clearly that you must keep wildlife and farmed animals seperate.

Yet – if fish were cattle – there'd be wild ungulates floating around and between the open net-pens “sneezing” on the cattle and vice-verse.

That's why we need up-to-date and publicly available fish health data from the farms to mitigate the disease transfer and respond appropriately to outbreaks.

IF – as you say – you have nothing to hide...and as Walling claims there is a “high level of transparency” - then I don't understand the reluctance from the industry, or why you think it is “unreasonable”.

And SF – DFO developed the “Wild Salmon Policy” some years ago to protect the wild stocks. DFO has yet to implement the Oceans Act and proceed with marine planning, including where open net-cages should or should not be placed. DFO has yet to institute scientifically defensible siting criteria. Understanding fish health and disease transfer back and forth to wild stocks is only just in it's infancy and long overdue. The industry has yet to complete a full CEAA assessment in over 30 years of operation.

And as CK said: “the decades are slipping by... “

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Do you have anything to back up your CEAA claims Aqua?

As far as I know they all had one done prior to this year when the regulations changed.

Like this one: http://www.acee-ceaa.gc.ca/052/details-eng.cfm?pid=32577

Now, sites have to go through a process like this one to apply for new tenures: http://www.arfd.gov.bc.ca/ApplicationPosting/viewpost.jsp?PostID=21805

Your TB comparison also fails to recognize that there are certain reportable diseases that are acted upon - not every single pathogen out there is dangerous to wild and farmed populations in a significant way.

Here's the list: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals...es/reportable/eng/1322940971192/1322941111904

When a farm in BC gets a reportable disease the fish are removed, like the recent case of IHN.

That protects wild fish (which carry the pathogens in the first place) and other farms (which may be succeptible).

And yes, the decades are slipping by - without any measurable impact from farms on wild stocks.

 

[Englishman]

Here is Dr. Marty's rebuttal to Mr. Coste's piece: http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/letters/salmon-farm-diseases-were-quickly-reported-1.147096

"The article neglects to say that, as a veterinarian, I am prohibited by my professional code of ethics from releasing to the public information contained in confidential medical records — unless I have permission; this is comparable to a doctor or a lawyer prohibited from releasing confidential records."

For Dr. Marty to try and use a comparison between doctor or lawyer confidentiality which involves information about people is absurd. For you to apparently agree with him is equally absurd. We are talking about disease information about fish here! Fish which are occupying a public resource.
If you are occupying a public resource all fish feed lots should be forced to provide samples and disclose all disease results as a condition of occupancy. It is OUR resource not yours!

"Every time I asked, permission was granted."

Truly noble and condescending of the fish feed lot owners I’m sure.

I think your demands on the aquaculture industry are unreasonable, your perception of the actions, motives and character of the people involved is incorrect and your continued asssertion that farms are harming wild stocks is false.

I think the your demands of the fish feed lot industry are unreasonable. You want the public and environment to accept all the risks while you reap the profits. (and if you say there are zero risks you are wrong). Your industry and the government promotion thereof is motivated solely my money and so-called jobs. That is NOT incorrect. The assertion that fish feed lots are harming wild stocks is perfectly true. The evidence for that comes from all over the world – Scotland, Ireland, Norway….the story is always the same. Just do a Google search. You just ignore inconvenient facts.

Turn that level of scrutiny on the sport and commercial sectors and see what kind of reaction you get.

How about individual bycatch records on every license, with totals of all species caught/killed handed in at the end of the season?

Typical tactics to turn attention away from yourselves and try and blame others. No one said by-catch had zero impact. By-catch is being addressed in Alaska and elsewhere. But it pales into insignificance compared to plastering potentially disease and lice laden sources all over the migration runs of what were once millions of juvenile salmon.

You want to debate impacts? Or just poke at what you see as unacceptable from your self-righteous standpoint?

Yes, those who have countered your “all is well” propaganda on here DO want to debate impacts. Agent and Charlie have quoted and provided links to any number of scientific papers on here which clearly document disease impacts and risks, but you never want to debate any of that. You just keep saying “prove it”. Just as the tobacco purveyors did, despite the massive amount of evidence connecting smoking with risk of cancer and heart disease. It’s their genes, their lifestyle, their diet they said! Science KNEW there was a correlation, a cause and effect, but the lawyers and PR houses kept them at bay for decades and at a cost of thousands of lives. If people can do that kind of thing for money, is it any wonder we question your motives if money is involved?

Why don't we calculate how many bleeding shakers are killed every year by all types of fishermen and compare that to ____ wild fish that might realistically pass a farm, pick up a pathogen they don't already have and then subsequently die from it.

You are clearly not a scientist or statistician and are ignorant of the different orders of different magnitude when it comes to risk and risk assessment. Again no one said shaker mortality was zero, but it is very low, especially with barbless hooks. On the other hand fish feed lots release billions of viral particles in great plumes across the migration routes and beyond. For you to so cavalierly dismiss that risk as “might realistically pass a farm, pick up a pathogen” is idiotic beyond belief.

(If this is where you say "ISA" - remember that it kills our fish first so we do everything possible to avoid it. Plus the fact it hasn't been shown to effect Pacific stocks in tests: http://www.salmonfarmers.org/sites/default/files/hot-topics/isa.pdf )

IF you do everything possible to avoid it, it is only because you are concerned for the fish feed lot stock. All other risks and fall-out are ignored and belittled. Money is your motivation.

(Or if this is where you say "PRV" - don't forget that it is a type of virus that is almost everywhere in the ocean and has never been shown to cause disease in BC: http://www.salmonfarmers.org/sites/default/files/hot-topics/prv_hsmi_2_1.pdf)

OMG you are muddling up disease and infection. I love the way the salmon feed lot site dismisses and casts doubt on the Norwegian PRV paper! Ignore and obfuscate inconvenient science!!

(If this is where you say "Mutations and viral evolution" - Well I can't help you there. Maybe you should spend some time on your Zombie kit...)

That statement right there screams a science ignoramus. The way you decry and make fun of a very serious thing that is viral mutation is appalling. It is science 101 that organisms mutate when they have a selective pressure to do so. Simple organisms mutate very fast, because the generations turnover so quickly. Have you never heard of the super bugs that pop up in all our hospitals? High concentrations of bugs plus selective pressure (antibiotics) means rapid and dangerous mutations. It is really incredible how you dismiss that risk, as you do with all science in your posts.

Why don't we add up the wild Coho or under/over-sized Chinook released every and calculate the expected mortality and then compare the same?

Or how about trying to add up the salmon caught illegally?
There are real and measurable impacts associated with everything when it comes to catching and killing fish –

Do NOT divert and deflect from the issue!

The anti-aquaculture argument relies on supposition, speculation and all manners of personal opinions and perceptions of risk to form their argument against the industry.

That is a total fabrication and falsehood. Any number of scientific papers are published, including some by the National Academy of Sciences documenting the risks and direct and indirect impacts of fish feed lots. The vast majority of the fish feed lot opponents get their facts from objective science, not feed lot propaganda which is motivated solely to keep the industry going, literally at any cost.

When faced with a lack of quantifiable evidence to support those views they fall back on the old, "Well, since no one can find it - you must be hiding it" argument, which in my mind is absurd.

On the contrary the evidence is out there. Did you not read the Cohen commission? Did you not hear the testimony of cover up and collusion? Did Cohen not reconvene the Commission because evidence which had formerly been conveniently hidden or “omitted” came to light?
Your attack is typical of your industry that attacks only the integrity, honesty and the motivation of the opponents and deliberately casts doubt on any “inconvenient” facts that do come to light.

Have you ever thought that salmon farms might not have any measurable negative impacts on wild stocks?

Maybe some people are starting to think that the distinct lack of success in linking wild fluctuations to farmed stocks might mean that they were wrong?

Have you ever thought that your industry is having a very large effect, by magnifying other factors, and that you are deliberately confusing the public with your insinuations that it is these other effect that are to blame?

Maybe instead of building a bigger and bigger conspiracy to hide the "truth" you feel is real, you might want to re-think your position.

How many years is this going to go on - the decades are slipping by...

So for 30 years your industry has been conducting a experiment on our wild fish and our environment. When this industry started here absolutely nothing was known at all about the impacts. But you were allowed to proceed anyway. And you see nothing morally wrong with this?? It makes me boil to think that you are permitted to reap all the profits and the wild salmon and the public pick up all the risks of this on-going experiment.

 

[agentaqua]

Thank you for the opportunity to re-explain the holes in the environmental review process, CK. It does seem to be an endless process of restating points already covered earlier on this thread.

The links you gave leads to a “screening”, not a full CEAA assessment. I guess it's no wonder you are so inexperienced in what a full comprehensive environmental review is since your industry has been exempt from a full review for over 30 years now.

There are 3 basic levels of CEAA review that start at a screening, through a full comprehensive review, and all the way up to a review panel.

From: http://www.ecojustice.ca/files/ceaa-backgrounder-1/at_download/file

Screenings provide the lowest level of scrutiny, as they do not require an assessment of important additional factors that are required in a comprehensive study or panel review. In some cases a screening may be a brief analysis of available information; in others, additional background work may be required. The majority of CEAA assessments are conducted by way of a screening. Public consultation is discretionary at this stage, and rarely occurs.

Scoping is also not done – which is determining the boundaries of the effects. This is a critical missing component of your assessments.

Instead, siting criteria are developed w/o any basis in science, but are rather geared towards what is convenient and timely for the industry.

A critical example of that is the set 1-2 km distance from creek mouths w/o determining migratory routes, w/o identifying marine nearshore holding and feeding areas for salmonids, w/o identifying cumulative effects of numerous farm sites on migratory routes, w/o identifying estuarine and tidal flow and modelling particulate movement, and w/o performing any defensible risk assessment and mitigation.

Instead DFO makes an in-house decision that the effects are “predictable and mitigateable” in order to support the inclusion of the review into a screening rather than a comprehensive review, meanwhile using no science to justify their decision or notifying the public and First Nations as to how they made that determination.

The Auditor General concurs with this assessment:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/parl_cesd_200911_01_e_33196.html#hd5i

All this based on the fact that DFO believes salmon swim less than 2 km from their mouths of their creeks!!

THAT”S YOUR “ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW” CK

 

[agentaqua]

Scientists Divided on ISA Threat in Pacific NW

NEW YORK TIMES

By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: May 2, 2013

SEATTLE — Like mariners scanning the horizon from the crow’s nest, scientists have for years been on the lookout in the Pacific Northwest for signs that a dreaded salmon-killing disease, scourge to farmed salmon in other parts of the world, has arrived here, threatening some of the world’s richest wild salmon habitats. Most say there is no evidence.

But for years, a biologist in Canada named Alexandra Morton — regarded by some as a visionary Cassandra, by others as a misguided prophet of doom — has said definitively and unquestionably that they are wrong. Wild Pacific salmon, she has said, are testing positive for a European strain of the virus that causes the disease, infectious salmon anemia, or I.S.A.

The virus, which has struck farmed salmon populations in Chile, among other places, is not harmful to humans who eat the fish, but could potentially pose grave threats in a part of the world where salmon plays a huge role in local economies and ecosystems. If the virus, which is in the influenza family, mutates into a virulent Pacific strain in the crowded fish farms in British Columbia, where wild and farmed salmon are sometimes in proximity, fish populations on both sides of the farm/wild divide, Ms. Morton believes, could be devastated.

“It’s an uncomfortable truth,” she said.

But scientists and government testing groups in Canada and the United States have said repeatedly over several years that Ms. Morton’s findings were not sufficient to sound an alarm, and that the risks to wild salmon, even in the event of a fish-farm outbreak, are unclear. After rounds of government hearings and millions of dollars spent on research, the two sides are in an increasingly bitter standoff.

“We’re trying to re-create the situation that she’s saying is out there, and to date we cannot re-create the results,” said Dr. Penny Greenwood, national manager of the domestic disease control program at Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Now, Ms. Morton has new test results that she said are positive for the infectious salmon anemia virus — though not necessarily the disease — in farmed salmon she bought at a fish market in Vancouver late last year. At the same time, the biggest effort ever on the American side of the border to find the virus is shifting into high gear, with fish samples arriving in labs in Idaho, Alaska and here in Washington State.

“I think we’re probably pretty close to having a definitive answer,” said Martin Krkosek, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Toronto.

The stakes are enormous, and not least for reputations. Salmon, in all their varied and usually pink-hued glory, have been an ecological anchor from Alaska to Oregon, intertwined with the region’s culture and economy since long before the arrival of Lewis and Clark.

The search for the virus raises questions that have swirled through commercial fishing and oceanography: Has the growth of open-ocean fish farming over the last three decades and the vast netted pens of Atlantic salmon from Chile to Maine and Norway to Canada created a reliable source of sustainable, inexpensive protein? Or, as critics contend, are the farms unsustainable because they pollute the seabed and because the close confinement of the fish raises the risk of disease?

Salmon farmers say that the broader controversy over aquatic farming has informed the narrower discussion of the salmon disease, and that Ms. Morton in particular has been out to get them, whether a virus is involved or not.

Adding further fuel — or at least, smoke — to the fire is a new documentary that accuses the Canadian government of deliberately covering up evidence that would support Ms. Morton’s conclusions. A Web site has since emerged that tries to debunk to the documentary.

“She says one thing, everybody else says something different, and therefore, in her view they’re all in collusion, and not doing a good job,” Ian Roberts, a spokesman for Marine Harvest Canada, the biggest salmon farming operation in British Columbia, said of Ms. Morton. He said his industry had sent upward of 8,000 samples for testing in recent years, without a single confirmed finding of the I.S.A. And he said the survival rate at his company’s salmon farms was better than 90 percent.

There is no doubt that the disease can wreak havoc. First described in Norway in the mid-1980s, it has flared on fish farms from Maine and the eastern coast of Canada to Scotland and Chile, which reported a new outbreak last month. The virus is also capable of mutating rapidly, which scientists on all sides of the issue say increases the need to keep an eye on it. Its victims can be seen gasping at the surface, lethargic and often swollen with fluids; mortality can reach 90 percent.

The global seafood industry, meanwhile, has become harder than ever for researchers to monitor, with well-established problems of labeling and provenance. A recent study, for example, of fish purchased in markets and restaurants around the nation by a nonprofit ocean protection group, Oceana, found that about a third of the samples tested were mislabeled.

Dr. Greenwood, of the Canadian food agency, said that research to determine where one of Ms. Morton’s market-purchased samples came from produced conflicting accounts from people in the supply chain. Without a clear chain of custody, she said, there was no point testing the fish at all. She said there had been no attempt to cover up anything.

“We couldn’t even verify that that fish was in fact Canadian in origin,” she said.

Wild fish coming into proximity with farmed fish is partly what raised disease concerns in British Columbia in the first place. Some fish pens, notably near the Fraser River, straddle the very corridor through which millions of sockeye salmon pass each year, both during their juvenile outmigration to the ocean and upon their return as adults to breed.

Those anxieties skyrocketed in 2009, when the salmon run on the Fraser suddenly collapsed, leading to a government inquiry in which infectious salmon anemia was discussed but never definitively implicated as a factor. (The Fraser’s sockeye salmon bounced back in 2010 with one of the biggest runs ever recorded, and have hovered around their long-term averages since then.)

James Winton, chief of the Fish Health Section at the United States Geological Survey’s Western Fisheries Research Center in Seattle, one of the labs involved in the new wave of tests, said that assessing disease risks to wild salmon went far beyond how close they get to their farmed cousins. Climate change, habitat loss, contaminants, variability of food supplies and ocean acidification, among other factors, may also play roles in affecting the susceptibility of wild salmon to diseases, he said.

Wild salmon remains a popular choice among diners, in part for its omega-3 fatty acids, which studies have shown are important for heart and brain health. The Washington State Department of Health sums up its advice in three succinct words and a bit of pro-wild caveat: “Keep eating salmon!” the agency says in its Web site. “Wild salmon is a great choice and farmed salmon is a good alternative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/science/infectious-salmon-anemia-threat-divides-scientists.html

 

[agentaqua]

'Dr. Greenwood, of the Canadian food agency, said that research to determine where one of Ms. Morton’s market-purchased samples came from produced conflicting accounts from people in the supply chain. Without a clear chain of custody, she said, there was no point testing the fish at all. She said there had been no attempt to cover up anything'

Remember how the CFIA tracked down the Listeria in the plant? BUT they can't do it with ISA fish? Hmmmm...

 

[agentaqua]

Gloves Come Off in Salmon Wars

NB MEDIA COOP

Written by M.L. Sheppard on May 1, 2013 in Environment, New Brunswick

Fredericton – It’s open season on open-pen salmon farming these days, with groups previously reluctant to criticize the industry going public with their concerns in a big way.

Signs of opposition have popped up since December, the most conspicuous of which, are large billboards with the entreaty, “Clean up Salmon Farming,” in the Halifax area. The billboards draw attention to harm caused by ocean-based salmon farming, namely the spread of disease and parasites from tame fish raised in pens to wild salmon stocks, coupled with the vast amounts of byproducts scientists say cause pollution and deaden parts of the sea floor.

Sue Scott of the St. Andrews based Atlantic Salmon Federation (ASF) says her organization is “working with industry towards more sustainable practices,” including research and development of land-based fish rearing systems. “We have taken a more vocal route with ads and billboards lately because government continues to promote open net pens and deny the science on impacts,” says Scott.

Until recently, many groups were reluctant to speak out against open-pen aquaculture. But the results of numerous scientific studies have caused a major re-thinking of this approach and the launch of the bold “Clean up Salmon Farming” campaign.

“In New Brunswick, industry has more or less had its way,” Scott says. “New Brunswickers haven’t spoken out about the industry; whereas in Nova Scotia, they’re not taking it sitting down. People are speaking out.”

Nova Scotia is the target of the novel clean up campaign due to planned expansions of the industry there. Evidence that pressure brought by the campaign may be working is a recent decision by the Nova Scotia government to decline a proposed open-pen aquaculture site in Shoal Bay. Newfoundland may be targeted next by the campaign.

Fundy Baykeeper Matthew Abbott is part of a broad coalition in the Maritimes, including ASF, standing staunchly behind the Clean up Salmon Farming campaign, which in addition to billboards includes full-page ads in the Halifax Chronicle Herald. A website completes the multi-level strategy.

“Ocean-based salmon farming has been a concern for a long time,” Abbott says. “For a while there was a hope it would take pressure off the wild stock, but that hasn’t occurred.” Instead there has been a growing concern over the effect farmed fish have on wild ones, including inter-breeding and disease transfer.

In 2010, Abbott convened a meeting of core members of what would become the Atlantic Coalition for Aquaculture Reform. Traditional fishing interests, lobster fishermen and community groups concerned about fin-fish aquaculture were all there. The coalition now includes groups from the three Maritime Provinces and ASF.

“The original vision for aquaculture in New Brunswick was for small-scale farms run by families,” says Abbott. “The industry has grown such that it is now dominated by one multinational corporation with feedlot-scale operations in the ocean.” This has prompted the change in attitudes, he says, and led people to start articulating their concerns in public. Adding to the urgency, federal and provincial levels of government have been seemingly looking the other way and ignoring criticism of permitting processes, all the while doling out compensation to corporations when diseased fish have to be destroyed.

Earlier this year the Standing Committee Report on Closed Containment Aquaculture said that it is technically possible to raise Atlantic salmon in closed-containment systems, albeit at a higher cost. This eats into profits, and then Fisheries and Oceans Minister Gail Shea sided with industry in rebuffing suggestions that closed containment should be pursued to allay environmental concerns. Opponents view this as government support for the status quo.

New Brunswick may not see a clean up salmon farming campaign soon, as there are few if any new fish farm permits to be issued. “We have reached the point where New Brunswick is saturated with fish farms,” Abbott says. “Passamaquoddy Bay and the Western Isles, in the outer Bay of Fundy, have the densest concentrations of salmon farms of anywhere in the world.”

For its part, industry remains convinced ocean-based activity is the best way forward. Cooke Aquaculture, New Brunswick’s largest producer, states on its website that the company is committed to the long-term social, economic and environmental sustainability of the communities where it operates, including Maine, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Meanwhile, the Atlantic Salmon Federation and its coalition partners defend their belief that closed, land-based containment is not only inevitable, but necessary to make fish farming sustainable, and they are determined to demonstrate this through action and not just words. In fact, diners at an ASF dinner recently splurged not on farmed salmon, but on Arctic charr raised in land-based containers in Nova Scotia’s Millbrook First Nation, near Truro. It was reportedly delicious, even more so because of its land-locked origins.

http://nbmediacoop.org/2013/05/01/gloves-come-off-in-salmon-war/

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.huffstrategy.com/MediaMa...it-over-transfer-of-diseased-salmon/2782.html

Morton, Ecojustice launch lawsuit over transfer of diseased salmon

May 8th, 2013 2:06 PM

Transfer of salmon infected with PRV virus into open-pen fish farm violates Fisheries Act, lawyers say


For immediate release

VANCOUVER - The transfer of diseased salmon into to an open-pen fish farm operated by Marine Harvest appears to have violated federal law, Ecojustice lawyers said today.

Ecojustice, acting on behalf of well-known biologist Alexandra Morton, has launched a lawsuit seeking a Federal Court order declaring that the transfer of diseased farmed Atlantic salmon into waters shared with wild fish is unlawful.

“The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is standing by, while private companies put fish carrying disease agents into the ocean,” said Margot Venton, Ecojustice staff lawyer. “We think this is unlawful. It’s definitely a serious abdication of DFO’s mandate to protect the fish and the marine environment.”

Morton alleges that in March 2013, Atlantic salmon infected with piscine reovirus (PRV) were transferred into an open-pen fish farm operated by Marine Harvest in Shelter Bay, B.C., located along the Fraser River sockeye migration route. Marine Harvest was operating under the terms of a federal aquaculture licence that purports to give them the power to make decisions about transferring diseased fish into the ocean.

Heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) is a severe disease that affects the muscles and heart of salmon. HSMI can weaken salmon to the point they are unable to swim up a river and reproduce. HSMI was first observed on Norwegian salmon farms in 1999 and spread quickly. HSMI is now thought to have spread to virtually all fish farms in Norway, affecting close to 100 per cent of farmed fish sampled. PRV has been recently identified in farmed Atlantic salmon in B.C.

Scientists report that piscine reovirus is associated with and thought to cause HSMI. Scientists warn that PRV must be contained to prevent widespread infection of wild fish populations.

“PRV is an emerging and exotic virus, red-flagged by scientists in the U.S. and Norway as a pathogen that must be contained because it spreads so easily” said Alexandra Morton. “The Minister of Fisheries should have responded to the discovery of this virus in BC with measures to protect wild salmon, but instead he has given this Norwegian company permission to expose BC’s wild salmon to an exotic virus with a nasty reputation.”

The emergence of PRV comes in the wake of the Cohen Commission’s final report, which concluded that “salmon farms along the sockeye migration route have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases that could have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye.” Permitting Marine Harvest to place highly infectious Atlantic salmon on the Fraser sockeye migration route runs contrary to the recommendations of the $26-million Cohen Commission.

B-roll and photos are available for media use at www.salmonconfidential.ca/lawsuit

A summary of key facts on PRV and HSMI can be found at:
http://www.ecojustice.ca/files/prv-hsmi-summary-of-facts-may-2013/

A e-copy of our Notice of Application can be found here:
http://www.ecojustice.ca/files/salmon-aquaculture-notice-of-application_filed/

For more information, please contact:
Margot Venton, staff lawyer | Ecojustice
604.349.2333

Alexandra Morton
250.974.7086

 

[agentaqua]

From: http://salmonconfidential.ca/lawsuit/

Lawsuit filed against Minister of Fisheries & Marine Harvest Canada

FOR MEDIA

Ecojustice Press Release here…

Published Science on the Piscine Reovirus & HSMI

Piscine Reovirus – what does the scientific literature say

1985 ~ 30 million Atlantic salmon eggs began entering British Columbia for the purposes of salmon farming http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/egg-oeuf-eng.htm

1999 a disease syndrome was first observed in farmed Atlantic salmon in Norway – cause unknown, at some point it is named Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation, HSMI.1

1/2004 team of 5 Norwegian scientists find HSMI can spread fish to fish by injecting a homogenate of an infected fish into a naïve fish and by cohabitation. Thus they determined the “syndrome” is an infectious disease. A viral aetiology was “strongly suggested.” The number of reported outbreaks was increasing [as recorded by the National Veterinary Inst. of Norway, 2003] In 2002, 41 farms were diagnosed with HSMI. Symptoms of the disease occur 5-9 months after transfer. (Kongtorp et al. 2004)

2/2005 HSMI appears in Scotland. Afflicted fish are described as “lethargic” “stacking up and holding station in the current,” as opposed to normal farm salmon swimming patterns of continuous circling the pen. This paper reports “pale lethargic fish accumulating on the net floor, sometimes lying on their sides,” and “soft, flabby” hearts. “There is little doubt that fish with lesions as severe as these would be reluctant to move and would be suffering clinically from a failing cardiovascular system.” Biosecurity helped limit the spread to adjacent sites. (Ferguson et al. 2005) (this study includes Norwegian authors from the 2004 paper).

3/2010 Piscine reovirus is discovered and proposed as the causative agent of HSMI. There are now 419 farms infected with HSMI in Norway. All salmon with HSMI have the virus. PRV cannot be cultured. PRV also found in fish not showing HSMI, PRV in low amounts in wild salmon. Compares similarities between salmon and poultry production as conducive to transmission and reduced resistance to infectious agents. “it is urgent that measures be taken to control PRV … due to the potential for transmission to wild salmon populations.” (Palacios et al 2010)

4/In popularized version of the above paper one of the authors states: “If the potential hosts are in close proximity, it goes through them like wildfire,” said Lipkin. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/salmon-disease-identified

5/2010 “fish with HSMI seem to be able to recover with time.” This could be part of the reason fish with PRV can appear “healthy.” States HSMI has not been found in freshwater, but this refers to the disease, not the virus, and then says the disease is normally observed 5-9 months after transfer [to saltwater]. Also compares chicken and salmon farming as similar both infected with reoviruses that are causing economy damage. In the case of the Dalrymple fish, the virus was confirmed in the fish in freshwater, and from this paper is not surprising if they did not appear to have the disease. (Løvoll et al. 2010)

6/2012 calls HSMI an “emerging disease,” “widespread and economically important.” “Our results confirm the association between PRV and HSMI and strengthen the hypothesis of PRV being the causative agent of HSMI.” While only 20% of afflicted farm salmon might die, morbidity includes “most” fish (so nearly all the fish show signs of the disease at some point, but can recover). “PRV is almost ubiquitously present in Atlantic salmon marine farms,” amount of virus is lower in fish not showing signs of the disease. Reports the reoviruses in chickens also cause heart problems, but are “generally benign” in humans. Notes that farm salmon do recover. Suggests a secondary factor, such as stress is required in addition to PRV to cause the disease, HSMI. The paper suggests that while PRV may be common to all farm salmon, that possible a more virulent strain is appearing in the feedlot environment of salmon farms. (Finstad et al 2012)

‎7/2012 “… it would be premature to conclude about the effects on wild fish at the present time” [and even less is known about the impact on wild Pacific salmon] (Biering et al 2012)

8/2012 Marine Harvest 2012 Annual Report [only partially printed out, bad alignment issues] lists HSMI as the #2 largest cause of mortality [death] in their fish see screen shots below.

9/2013 Calls HSMI “severe” disease PRV detected in 55.2% escaped Atlantics, 24% of hatchery Atlantics and 13.4% of wild Atlantics in Norway. 162 infected farms in 2007. Few studies on spread of viruses from farm salmon to wild, “generally acknowledged that aquaculture can influence diseases in wild fish populations… or by introducing pathogens into new geographical areas.” In two Norwegian rivers PRV detected in escaped and hatchery Atlantics, but not in wild Atlantics. They note “limited knowledge about the occurrence of PRV in farmed salmon,” and so could not confidently correlate prevalence in the wild salmon to farm infection of PRV. The paper notes if wild salmon show signs of the disease they would be “less capable of returning to rivers,” and all these samples were from the rivers. “In general, diseased wild fish are difficult to sample because they display abnormal behaviour or reduced swimming capacity and will be removed by predators or otherwise disappear in the mass of water.” They note it is important to screen wild fish for PRV to shed light on any association with decreasing wild populations. (Garseth et al 2013)

10/2013 (in prep.) First report of PRV outside of Norway. The strain sequenced in BC is of Norwegian genotype and diverged from Norwegian sub-genotype Ia in 2006 ± 1. The virus has also been detected in Atlantic herring, mackerel and smelt. (I am co-author and samples include BC farm salmon from supermarkets)

11/2011 - Aquaculture is the key driver for the introduction of non-native species. Most farming systems allow pathogen exchange between farmed and wild populations which underpins host-switching. Subsequently movements of animals between farms may result in the spread of newly emerged diseases.” Aquaculture and the ornamental aquatic animal trade are the key drivers for the introduction of non-native aquatic animal species…. Without improved risk mitigation (quarantine, introduction of fertilized eggs) disease emergence as a result of non-native species introduction will continue with potentially serious consequences for wild aquatic animal populations” Note this paper using the term “parasite” to mean virus (Peeler et al 2011).

12/2008 In this year Gary Marty, provincial farm salmon health vet reports a pattern of heart inflammation in BC farm salmon that has “has also been described with Hearth and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation in Atlantic salmon reared in Europe.” It was unknown at that time that PRV was associated with HSMI, and there was no test for HSMI, other than the diagnostics that Dr. Marty did, so technically this may be diagnosis of HSMI – need to get expert opinion on this.

13/2012 DFO denies presence of PRV, fish farm industry denies presence of HSMI, Provincial vet, Gary Marty says it is common in farm salmon, but “wild fish are not infected with PRV”

14/2012 Gary Marty co-publishes paper reporting 200 juvenile salmon collected in Broughton in 2008 do not have PRV. This is highly significant because I found it to be so prevalent in the same age class and species in the same region in 2012. While this is an extremely scant “trend” it is all we have and it supports the scientific literature warning that this virus spreads fast and easily… like “wildfire.”

15/16 2012 juvenile and adult salmon sampled in Broughton in 2012 test positive for PRV at the Kibenge Lab at the Atlantic Veterinary College

Facts Important to this case:

The disease HSMI was known from 1999 -2010, but there was no way to screen incoming Atlantic salmon eggs for this, because the causative agent was unknown.

It has spread rapidly through Norwegian farms

1999 – 1st noticed1
2002 – 41 farms infected1
2007 – 162 farms infected9
2010 – 419 farms infected3

{Continued on next post}

 

[agentaqua]

The symptoms of the disease occur 5-9 months after seawater transfer5 – so smolts leaving the hatchery would not appear sick.

Fish with the disease (not just the virus) are seen lying on their sides on the bottom of the net cage while still alive.2

Biosecurity is important to help limit the spread to adjacent sites2

“At a time when humans are being encouraged to eat fish to help combat … coronary disease, it seems somewhat ironic the heart disease seems to be such a problem in the fish themselves.”2

Urgent that measure be taken to control PRV to prevent transmission to wild salmon populations.3

Spreads like “wildfire”4

Farm fish with PRV may recover, this does not refer to wild salmon, which would be extremely vulnerable to predation if found lying on their side, on the seafloor, as described for farm salmon fighting HSMI (floor of the pen in this case).5

PRV widespread, this paper suggest higher virulence in some strains of PRV may be causing disease, whereas the lower virulence may not – just a theory.6

Premature to make any conclusions that this virus has more/less impact on wild salmon than on farm salmon – nothing can be said about impact on health of wild salmon at this point.7

HSMI is the #2 killer of Marine Harvest farm salmon worldwide and BC is where #2 greatest farm salmon losses are occurring for Marine Harvest (they show a map and there are no MH farms listed for eastern Canada, so all numbers reporting on Canada, are BC)8

HSMI referred to as a “severe” disease. Found in free-ranging Atlantics in Norway, but at much higher levels in escaped farm salmon and hatchery salmon, than the truly wild Atlantics. 9

PRV sequence from BC matches PRV sequence from Norway, the virus appears to be Norwegian and to have entered BC in 2006 ± 110

HSMI-type lesions were found in BC farm salmon, prior to discovery of PRV. Since the only diagnostics available for HSMI in 2008 was detection of the lesions, this report by Dr. Marty might be seen as reporting of the disease.11

Aquaculture can import disease with potentially serious negative consequence to wild species12

200 Juvenile salmon collected in Broughton Archipelago in 2008 by DFO test negative for PRV, testing done by Dr. Gary Marty.14

BC wild juvenile and adult salmon test positive for PRV in Broughton Archipelago in 2012 15, 16

References

1Kongtorp, R.T., Kjerstad, A., Taksdal, T., Guttvik, A., Falk, K. 2004 Heart and Skeletal muscle inflammation in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L.: a new infectious disease. Journal of Fish Diseases 27, 351-358. www.sfu.ca/grow/science/resources/1321653980.pdf
2Ferguson, H.W., Kongtorp, R.T., Taksdal, T., Graham, D., Falk, K. 2005 An outbreak of disease resembling heart and skeletal muscle inflammation in Scottish farmed salmon, Salmo salar L., with observation on myocardial regeneration. Journal of Fish Disease 28, 119-123. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15705157
3Palacios G, Lovoll M, Tengs T, Hornig M, Hutchison S, Hui J, Kongtorp RT, Savji N, Bussetti AV, Solovyov A, Kristoffersen AB, Celone C, Street C, Trifonov V, Hirschberg DL, Rabadan R, Egholm M, Rimstad E, Lipkin WI: 2010 Heart and skeletal muscle inflammation of farmed salmon is associated with infection with a novel reovirus. PLoS One 2010, 5:e11487. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011487
4http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/salmon-disease-identified
5Løvoll, M., Wiik-Nielsen, J., Søren, G., Wiik-Nielsen, C. R., Kristofferson, A.B., Faller, R., Poppe, T., Jung, J., Pedamallu, C., S., Nederbragt, A. J., Meyerson, M., Rimstad, E., Tengs, T. 2010. A novel totovirus and piscine reovirus (PRV) in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) with cardiomyopathy syndrome (CMS). Virology Journal. 7: 309
6Finstad, Ø. W., K. Fal, M. LØvol, E. Øystein, E. Rimstad. 2012 Immunohistochemical detection of piscine reovirus (PRV) in hearts of Atlantic salmon coincide with the course of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI). Veterinary Research, 43:27. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22486941
7Biering, E., Madhun, S. A., Isachsen, C. H., Omdal, L. M., Einen, A. C. B., Garseth, Å. H., Bjørn, P. A., Nilsen, R., Karlsbakk, E. 2012. Annual report on health monitoring of wild anadromous salmonids in Norway. Institute of Marine Research 6, 2013 http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/03/...port_fra_havforskningen_nr._6-2013_.pdf/nb-no
8Marine Harvest 2012 Annual Report http://hugin.info/209/R/1696633/558857.pdf
9Garseth ÅH, Fritsvold C, Opheim M, Skjerve E, Biering E: Piscine reovirus (PRV) in wild Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., and sea-trout, Salmo trutta L., in Norway. J Fish Dis 2012, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2761.2012.01450.x
10Kibenge, M. J. T., Iwamoto, T., Wang, Y., Morton, A., Godoy, G., Kibenge, S. B. (under review) Whole-genome analysis of piscine reovirus (PRV) shows PRV represents a new genus in family Reoviridae and its genome segment S1 sequences group it into two separate sub-genotypes
11Gary Marty 2008 Final Report AHC Case 08-3362 to Mainstream Canada
12Peeler E.J., Oidtmann B.C., Midtlyng P.J., Miossec L. & Gozlan R.E. (2011) Non-native aquatic animals introductions have driven disease emergence in Europe. Biological Invasions 13, 1291–1303. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00033/14431/14066.pdf
13 FIS article April 17, 2012, Disease in fish claimed wrong by salmon farmers http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=17&id=51494&l=e&special=&ndb=1 target=
14 Saksida, S.M., Marty, G.D., Jones, S.R., Manchester, C.L., Diamond, C.L., Bidulka, J., St-Hilaire, S. 2012. Parasites and hepatic lesions among pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum), during early seawater residence. Journal of Fish Diseases. 35 137-151
15 August 9, 2012 lab report from Atlantic Veterinary College
16 September 28, 2012 lab report from Atlantic Veterinary College

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167652

Piscine reovirus (PRV) in wild Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., and sea-trout, Salmo trutta L., in Norway.

Garseth AH, Fritsvold C, Opheim M, Skjerve E, Biering E.


Source

Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Trondheim, Norway.


Abstract


This is the first comprehensive study on the occurrence and distribution of piscine reovirus (PRV) in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., caught in Norwegian rivers. PRV is a newly discovered reovirus associated with heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI), a serious and commercially important disease affecting farmed Atlantic salmon in Norway. A cross-sectional survey based on real-time RT-PCR screening of head kidney samples from wild, cultivated and escaped farmed Atlantic salmon caught from 2007 to 2009 in Norwegian rivers has been conducted. In addition, anadromous trout (sea-trout), Salmo trutta L., caught from 2007 to 2010, and anadromous Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), caught from 2007 to 2009, were tested. PRV was detected in Atlantic salmon from all counties included in the study and in 31 of 36 examined rivers. PRV was also detected in sea-trout but not in anadromous Arctic char. In this study, the mean proportion of PRV positives was 13.4% in wild Atlantic salmon, 24.0% in salmon released for stock enhancement purposes and 55.2% in escaped farmed salmon. Histopathological examination of hearts from 21 PRV-positive wild and one cultivated salmon (Ct values ranging from 17.0 to 39.8) revealed no HSMI-related lesions. Thus, it seems that PRV is widespread in Atlantic salmon returning to Norwegian rivers, and that the virus can be present in high titres without causing lesions traditionally associated with HSMI.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

[agentaqua]

Maybe you should spend some time on your Zombie kit...

Thanks for the suggestion, CK. I spent some time on it....

 

[agentaqua]

http://tidechange.ca/2013/05/08/piscine-reovirus-part-1-by-ray-grigg/

This page was exported from TideChange [ http://tidechange.ca/wordpress ]

Export date:Thu May 9 13:45:23 2013 / +0000 GMT

___________________________________________________


Title: Piscine Reovirus: Part 1 - by Ray Grigg

---------------------------------------------------


If the “research” recommendations of the Cohen Commission Report are to be implemented, then the study of “pathogens” emanating from net-pen salmon farms would be a useful place to begin.

Indeed, Justice Cohen is quite explicit that rigorous testing be undertaken on “the hypothesis that diseases are transmitted from farmed salmon” to wild species (Chapter 4, #68, p. 113B).

This is a fertile area for study. For example, Justice Cohen learned during a special reconvening of his Commission in December, 2011, that infectious salmon anemia (ISAv), is a lethal viral infection in wild salmon linked to the arrival of salmon farms to BC's West Coast. Had he chosen to reconvene again four months later at the urging of Alexandra Morton, he would also have learned of another debilitating affliction likely brought to the West Coast by the salmon farming industry. A piscine reovirus (PRV), known to cause heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI), is a disease that so weakens wild salmon that they may be unable swim the oceans or migrate to their spawning grounds. Although Justice Cohen didn't receive evidence on PRV-HSMI, he already knew enough from his hearings to warn that “devastating disease could sweep through wild [salmon] populations... .”

Just as Justice Cohen anticipated in his Report, the presence of PRV-HSMI in BC's wild salmon was not revealed by the provincial government or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the two agencies that are supposed to be monitoring the condition of marine health. Once again disclosure of PRV-HSMI came from Morton.

The credibility of her April, 2012, findings were supported by Professor Rick Routledge, a Simon Fraser University fish population statistician, whose research team found the piscine reovirus in 13 of 15 Cultus Lake cutthroat trout, a salmonid species (The Vancouver Sun, July 19/12). Such a virus might explain the mysterious collapse of Cultus Lake salmon runs.

Morton discovered PRV-HSMI when she purchased 45 BC-grown farmed Atlantic salmon from supermarkets in Vancouver and Victoria during February, 2012, and sent samples to PEI's Atlantic Veterinary Lab for testing. Of the 45 samples, 44 tested positive for the piscine reovirus known to cause HSMI. The sequenced profile of the virus indicated it was 99 percent identical to the one found in Norwegian farmed salmon. If this reovirus is in BC farmed salmon in such high proportions, it is almost certainly in the wild salmon that swim past the farms on their migration routes, providing the most likely explanation for how the virus got to Cultus Lake cutthroat.

The implications for all salmonids are significant. As Morton explains, “The obvious potential that piscine reovirus is killing Fraser sockeye by weakening their hearts, rendering them less capable of fighting their way through white water rapids like Hell's Gate, was never raised at the [Cohen Commission] Inquiry. Despite the Province of BC apparently knowing it was common in salmon farms.” As Morton contends, this information about PRV-HSMI is vital if we are to explain why “over 90 percent of the Fraser sockeye die as they are swimming upstream.”

Notably, when Dr. Kristy Miller was giving evidence at the reconvened hearings of the Cohen Commission in December, 2011, she did mention that preliminary indications — made independently by her in defiance of DFO instructions to cease investigations — identified piscine reovirus in Chinook salmon in a farm in Clayoquot Sound and in some Fraser River sockeye. Since the focus at the time was on infectious salmon anaemia (ISAv), the evidence of PRV-HSMI seemed to pass as merely incidental information.

But it wasn't incidental information. It was and is extremely relevant, even though the presence of PRV doesn't technically mean the clinical symptoms of HSMI are present. Reports from the provincial veterinarian pathologist lab as early as 2008 showed “congestion and hemorrhage in the stratum compactum of the heart” in farmed salmon, symptoms consistent with PRV-HSMI. And both the pathologist and the industry were aware of 75 percent infections rates of PRV in farmed salmon in 2010. Apparently this information was not conveyed to the Cohen Commission because the pathologist and industry did not consider the reovirus to be a health concern to wild salmon.

However, as Morton has pointed out in her website (alexandramorton.typepad.com), this opinion is contradicted by “a joint scientific publication by the Center for Infection and Immunity, Columbia University, New York, and by Norwegian government scientists” who warn, “It is urgent that measures be taken to control PRV not only because it threatens domestic salmon production but also due to potential for transmission to wild salmon populations.”

This threat was not new information. HSMI was first identified in 1999 in Norwegian salmon farms, according to Brandon Keim, writing in Wired Science on July 13, 2010 (“Salmon Killer Disease Mystery Solved”). He reported that a two year study had determined the cause of HSMI to be a 10-gene piscine reovirus. “Infected fish are physically stunted,” Keim wrote, “and their muscles are so weakened that they have trouble swimming or even pumping blood. The disease is often fatal, and the original outbreak has been followed by 417 others in Norway and the United Kingdom. Every year there's more of the disease and it's now been seen in wild fish, suggesting that farm escapees are infecting already-dwindling wild stocks.” The disease, he noted, spreads like “wildfire” where fish are concentrated in high densities like salmon farms.

From the evidence presented to Justice Cohen, he concluded that such warnings are real and justified, and “that salmon farms along the sockeye migration route have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases...” (Chapter 2, p. 22A). “I therefore conclude,” he writes ,“that the potential harm posed to Fraser River sockeye salmon from salmon farms is serious or irreversible” (Ibid.) — a damning finding considering that, in his terminology, “Fraser River sockeye” usually means “all wild salmon”.

---------------------------------------------------


Images:

---------------------------------------------------




---------------------------------------------------


Post date: 2013-05-08 17:32:07

Post date GMT: 2013-05-09 00:32:07

Post modified date: 2013-05-08 17:32:07

Post modified date GMT: 2013-05-09 00:32:07



____________________________________________________________________________________________


Export of Post and Page has been powered by [ Universal Post Manager ] plugin from www.ProfProjects.com

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Thank you for the opportunity to re-explain the holes in the environmental review process, CK. It does seem to be an endless process of restating points already covered earlier on this thread.

The links you gave leads to a “screening”, not a full CEAA assessment. I guess it's no wonder you are so inexperienced in what a full comprehensive environmental review is since your industry has been exempt from a full review for over 30 years now.

There are 3 basic levels of CEAA review that start at a screening, through a full comprehensive review, and all the way up to a review panel.

From: http://www.ecojustice.ca/files/ceaa-backgrounder-1/at_download/file

Screenings provide the lowest level of scrutiny, as they do not require an assessment of important additional factors that are required in a comprehensive study or panel review. In some cases a screening may be a brief analysis of available information; in others, additional background work may be required. The majority of CEAA assessments are conducted by way of a screening. Public consultation is discretionary at this stage, and rarely occurs.

Scoping is also not done – which is determining the boundaries of the effects. This is a critical missing component of your assessments.

Instead, siting criteria are developed w/o any basis in science, but are rather geared towards what is convenient and timely for the industry.

A critical example of that is the set 1-2 km distance from creek mouths w/o determining migratory routes, w/o identifying marine nearshore holding and feeding areas for salmonids, w/o identifying cumulative effects of numerous farm sites on migratory routes, w/o identifying estuarine and tidal flow and modelling particulate movement, and w/o performing any defensible risk assessment and mitigation.

Instead DFO makes an in-house decision that the effects are “predictable and mitigateable” in order to support the inclusion of the review into a screening rather than a comprehensive review, meanwhile using no science to justify their decision or notifying the public and First Nations as to how they made that determination.

The Auditor General concurs with this assessment:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/parl_cesd_200911_01_e_33196.html#hd5i

All this based on the fact that DFO believes salmon swim less than 2 km from their mouths of their creeks!!

THAT”S YOUR “ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW” CK

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

I can tell this particular element is one you have quite thoroughly investigated.

What would you do if this process was enacted as you see fit and it showed that the impact of farms was less than the impact of sportfishing bycatch and release mortality?

Or, if this process showed that there were spots where salmon farms had no measurable impact on wild stocks - would you support them there?

I completely understand that you feel the process is lacking, but from my point of view - if you can't measure something (such as negative impacts on wild runs) despite the decades of co-existence and multiple areas of operation, it must be very small.

If you are going to propose a "Zero Tolerance" for salmon farms you would have to accept the same level of scrutiny on all other resource users.

"We" as salmon farmers are part of the population as well, despite all attempts to portray the industry as a foreign entity, the fact remains that it started with local mom and pop operations and continues to employ and benefit many people over the coast.

I fully support using scientific research to locate farms in the best possible spots given all potential and manageable impacts - but they will still be in the ocean.

If the recommendations of the Cohen Commission are followed and the future finds us moving farms out of previously undetermined sensitive areas - they will have to go somewhere else in order to ensure that the needs of the other resource users are met, being the aquaculture industry.

You may not like it, but we are all in this together and salmon farms are not going away.

 

[Charlie]

"You may not like it, but we are all in this together and salmon farms are not going a way "You" want to bet on that?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

"You may not like it, but we are all in this together and salmon farms are not going a way "You" want to bet on that?

How is your battle going down there Charlie?

Seems to me that the crew down there started quite a few years earlier then we did up here farming Atlantics, actually I think it's where the majority of our eggs came from.

Tell me, are they still stocking Atlantics in lakes down there? Have they finally given up trying to introduce them in the ocean too?

1991: The last attempt by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in Washington State was made to introduce and establish Atlantic salmon on the Pacific coast for sport fishing. Between 1951-1991, 76,000 smolts were deliberately introduced.17

2003: Thousands of juvenile Atlantic salmon found in Washington creeks. The source was determined to be nearby Atlantic salmon hatcheries. Despite repairs to hatchery outflows, some juveniles were still found in nearby streams until 2006.19

2010: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife stocked 2,273 and 2,998 Atlantic salmon in East and Hosmer lakes, which are landlocked. The probability of Atlantic salmon spreading into other Oregon waters is deemed “very low.” The fisheries are hatchery-supported and are not self-sustaining.20

http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/Timeline of Atlantic salmon in Pacific.pdf

Looks like the aquaculture industry is alive and well: http://www.wfga.net/links.php

Here's a great "tour" : http://www.wfga.net/tour.php

 

[Dave]

"You may not like it, but we are all in this together and salmon farms are not going a way "You" want to bet on that?

What are you wagering Charlie? I and several thousand others may well take you up on this ... after you rid your home state of their salmon farms.
Oh, right, they are quite fine and should set an example for ours here in BC.
Did you ever sell used cars?

 

[agentaqua]

I think Charlie would do just fine selling used net-cage floats, actually. He could tell the youngsters of how bad the technology was, how corrupt the government was, and how badly the fish farm hacks constantly lied to everyone - including themselves.

Yes Sir - buy yourself a piece of history - just like buying a chunk of the Berlin wall. The fish farm hacks would be working in McDonalds - or prison - alongside some prominent DFO folks. The politicians would be the ones gone back to selling used cars. Harper's used and stolen horse lot - just like Grandpapa.

Watta think Chuck? Sound like a good dream to work towards?