Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jon5hill]

Hello All:

Jan. 5, 2010  was the latest court date in the charges I laid under the Fisheries Act against Marine Harvest Canada for unlawful possession of wild salmon by-catch.  Generally, when a member of the public witnesses a potential violation of the Fisheries Act, they simply report it to the federal fisheries (DFO) who does the investigation and lays a charge if they have the evidence. DFO asks the public to help under their Observe, Record, Report campaign. Many people have stepped forward over the years to help DFO successfully enforce the Fisheries Act and conserve our wild fish. I did report the wild salmon that were in the Marine Harvest vessel, Orca Warrior to DFO, they indicated they were investigating, but they never said whether they would lay a charge. So I did to protect the juvenile wild salmon of the Broughton.
 
At our last court date, a month ago in Port Hardy, the Department of Justice (DOJ - who is next in line after DFO to run this trial indicated they needed more time to investigate the charge. My lawyer, Jeffery Jones and I hope the DOJ will assume conduct and run the prosecution as that is what DOJ's mandate is, and they have the better resources and expertise to do this.
 
But on Jan. 5, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent an agent, as did Marine Harvest. But my lawyer and I were disappointed to hear that DOJ has refused to make a decision as to whether or not to prosecute.  This means that we still don't know if we should conduct the trial ourselves and remain in limbo. It creates uncertainty in the trial process if at any time DOJ can suddenly step in and take over...or not.

However, Judge Saunderson clarified the matter and ordered the DOJ to make a decision within 30 days.
 
Jeffery Jones, who is working pro bono, also asked for disclosure from DFO and DOJ, because if we are to continue in the government's role as the prosecutor we need the government files on their investigation. Presumably, Marine Harvest would want disclosure from DFO and DOJ as well.
 
Judge Saunderson adjourned our application for disclosure until after he hears what the DOJ's intention is.
 
Alexandra Morton

[chris gadsden]

Today BC Supreme Court ruled in our favor once again. Justice Hinkson granted the federal government a suspension order until December 18, 2010 so that Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) can further prepare to assume control of regulating salmon farms. However, Justice Hinkson forbade any expansion of aquaculture during that period. Specifically, the province cannot issue any new fish farm licences and cannot expand the size of any tenure. He recognized the First Nation interest in this matter by granting the Musgamagw-Tsawataineuk Tribal Council intervenor status, which is essential as this case is based in their territory.

On the matter pursued by Marine Harvest at the Court of Appeal and sent back to Justice Hinkson to reconsider (that is whether the fish in the farms are privately owned by the companies and whether the Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA) is still in force), Hinkson confirmed  that the FPPA, will  no longer apply to finfish aquaculture and thus no longer protect farms from nuisance claims. 

On the question, does Marine Harvest own the  fish in their pens? Justice Hinkson found that this was not the place for this decision.  Marine Harvest will have to bring this before the courts themselves. For now, we know that the aquaculture fish are now part of the fisheries of Canada.

Today’s decision is met by the unrelated announcement by US box store chain “Target” that they have eliminated all farmed salmon from its fresh, frozen, and smoked seafood offerings in its stores across the United States, because of farm salmon environmental impact on native salmon.

There is an enormous amount of work ahead to translate any of this into better survival of our wild salmon, but the courts  seem consistently interested in bringing reason, the constitution and the law to bear on the Norwegian fish farm industry in British Columbia. 

While I am truly sorry that jobs will be lost in ocean fish farming, bear in mind the industry is in deep trouble with mother nature herself in the fish farming strongholds of Chile and Norway. Trying to hold this nomadic fish in pens is never going to work, because it causes epidemics, unnatural sea lice infestations and drug resistance. Salmon farming is not sustainable and ultimately we are better served by our wild fish.

Alexandra Morton

[purple monster]

my apologies to both Jon5hill and Chris for jumping the cue.   I am by no means a expert in the fish farm saga.  I got over excited with the news. 
However,  I was really happy to see that "TARGET", a giant food supplier is recognizing the need to set up proper corporate etiquette.  I do really  hope that our local food supplier can do the same.  But , where does it stop:  It is always very difficult to know now, where exactly does our fish supper come from. 

I am curious about one thing, can we supply our society with sufficient food supply (fish) without these fish farms?  Can we produce enough fishes on fish farm totally contained on land?   Do we need to get rid of cat food, and cats of course???

Is it true that the main reason for the popularity of the ocean fish farms is due to the lower cost to produce, versus the fish farm on land? Is it a lower cost to treat and dispose of fish waste???   

Could we make fertilizer with fish waste??? From land locked fish farms of course.

Could rivers or oceans hatchery  produce enough fishes that are let go in the wild to sustain our demand??

Once again, apologies for jumping the cue.  Purple monster

[Sam Salmon]

.....can we supply our society with sufficient food supply (fish) without these fish farms?  Can we produce enough fishes on fish farm totally contained on land?

It looks like raising vegetarian fish-like Tilapia/Carp/Catfish and a few others is one easier way to go.

Raising piscivorous/carnivorous fish is always going to be expensive in many ways.
 

Is it true that the main reason for the popularity of the ocean fish farms is due to the lower cost to produce, versus the fish farm on land? Is it a lower cost to treat and dispose of fish waste???

   
Yes in theory but in fact there's a huge cost when waste is just allowed to collect on the bottom thus destroying the benthic environment.

Could we make fertilizer with fish waste??? From land locked fish farms of course.

Yes there's been some work done on this in the past and research is ongoing, in Chile and here.

Could rivers or oceans hatchery  produce enough fishes that are let go in the wild to sustain our demand??

Something of a loaded question-but it looks like the Ocean can only sustain so much life you can't overload it or the whole deal crashes-heck it crashes anyway for reasons we don't quite understand.

[aquapaloosa]

There are many salmon farm scenarios where the waist is not allowed to build up on the bottom thus not destroying it.


Purple Monster,
your 4th question rings to me what is going on in Alaska.  What they are doing there is salmon ranching.  Search it on the web it is pretty interesting.

[jon5hill]

can we supply our society with sufficient food supply (fish) without these fish farms?

Approximately half of fish consumed globally comes from aquaculture. In other words, unless humans underwent a dramatic dietary protein consumption shift, wild fish would be caught at twice the current rate, which would be devastating for many fisheries currently at risk due to over exploitation.
 

Can we produce enough fishes on fish farm totally contained on land?

Likely not totally land-based, but yes. Closed containment can produce just as many fish as net-pen aquaculture, they just need to develop the infrastructure. This could be costly but considering the magnitude of revenue these aquaculture corporations are making it is certainly not impossible.

Do we need to get rid of cat food, and cats of course???

This question probably revolves around fish meal in cat food? I think they should use a more sustainable food source than gill netting wild feeder fish, but I don't think this is the main issue. Getting rid of cats...?

Is it true that the main reason for the popularity of the ocean fish farms is due to the lower cost to produce, versus the fish farm on land?

Ocean fish farms are popular because they are essentially using the ocean for free filtration, free temperature regulation, free saline content regulation, free waste removal, and extremely cheap compared to the costs of land aquaculture, such as: property, infrastructure, technology development, pen regulation in terms of temperature and water quality.

Is it a lower cost to treat and dispose of fish waste???   

The cost is significantly higher to treat and dispose of fish waste.

Could we make fertilizer with fish waste??? From land locked fish farms of course.

Of course.

Could rivers or oceans hatchery  produce enough fishes that are let go in the wild to sustain our demand??

I don't believe this is a wise idea, considering the fact that hatchery fish are essentially a monoculture. This means they are genetically similar. Since genetic diversity is a key component of resilience to environmental variation and stochastic events, a year with low numbers could potentially push certain isolated populations into inbreeding depression, and potentially an extinction vortex.

Once again, apologies for jumping the cue.  Purple monster

No apology necessary, I don't know what cue you're talking about

[chris gadsden]

The latest from Alexandra

On February 2, lawyer Jeffery Jones and I were back in court with my charges against Marine Harvest for illegal possession of wild pink salmon by-catch.  On the previous date (January 4) Judge Saunderson instructed the Department of Justice to inform the court on this day as to whether they will be assuming conduct of this case.


    However, Todd Gerhart of the Department of Justice was only prepared to tell the judge that he would make his decision “soon.”  When the judge asked for a specific time, Gerhart did not answer. In response the judge stood the issue down and recalled us later in the day.
     
    Marine Harvest used this opportunity to request disclosure of the “in camera” process hearing. This was a closed-door meeting between myself, a witness, my lawyer and the judge wherein the judge reviewed our evidence and decided the charge could move forward. The Marine Harvest Lawyer, Chris Watson held up some case law.   Although the precedent he offered was from a different situation, we have nothing to hide and agreed.  The Marine Harvest lawyer asked that I bear the cost of transcribing the process hearing, but Judge pointed out it was already transcribed.
     
    Finally, Marine Harvest requested an arraignment date in April and so that is when we will learn if the Department of Justice will assume contact of this case.
     
    I felt disappointed that DOJ couldn’t give us a decision sooner, despite the previous court order.  Spring is coming to us again and with it all the young wild salmon and herring that can be entrapped, detained, destroyed, fed artificial food or even preyed on in salmon farm nets.  However, I have learned the courts cannot be hurried and we should take heart that while this may be slow, at least it is not going backwards.
     
    Mr. Gerhart might decide not to assume this case. Or he could decide to take it over and stay the charges. Or he could decide to conduct a trial and bring the resources of the Department of Justice and our substantial evidence in support of the wild fish that are being removed by fish farm by-catch.  Mr. Gerhart appears to be very concerned with fairness and the public interest and has two decisions to make.
     

       1. What is the likelihood of conviction? – On this point I can say we have: witnesses, samples of the wild juvenile salmon, and written admission from Marine Harvest that they had wild salmon in their possession.
       2. Is this in the public interest – So I put this to you. Are you interested in seeing the laws of Canada applied to Marine Harvest to prevent them from taking wild fish without a licence or any record of quantity?


    Mr. Gerhart says he is still willing to review new information about this case regarding the public interest. I look forward to providing further information to Mr. Gerhart to help establish the public interest in this prosecution. If other people feel the same way, Mr. Gerhart can be contacted directly at: Todd.gerhart@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca
     
    This may be a critical time to demonstrate once and for all to the Canada’s Department of Justice how important wild fish are to the people of British Columbia.

[Eagleye]

        Mr. Gerhart says he is still willing to review new information about this case regarding the public interest. I look forward to providing further information to Mr. Gerhart to help establish the public interest in this prosecution. If other people feel the same way, Mr. Gerhart can be contacted directly at: Todd.gerhart@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca
     
    This may be a critical time to demonstrate once and for all to the Canada’s Department of Justice how important wild fish are to the people of British Columbia.

Done!

Hello Mr. Gerhart,
 
I am writing this to show my support for the case Alexandra Morton has initiated against Marine Harvest for their violations of the fisheries act.  I think it is critical that the Department of Justice assumes this case because these fish farms have been destroying the ecosystems that they are present in along with the wild salmon that migrate past them while our governing bodies turn a blind eye to the destruction they are causing; abbrogating their duty to protect our wild salmon and marine environment. The extent at which Wild Salmon benefit Canadians and our ecosystems is vast and greatly outweighs any benefit from farmed fish. Due to the above I implore you to pursue this matter inorder to uphold the laws of the marine environment which are in place to prevent excessive degradation to our ecosystems for the benefit of all Canadians.
 
Thank you for your time in resolving this matter,

Show your support!

[Terry Bodman]

For those interested in the fish farming debate, the book " A Stain Upon The Sea" should be required reading. Six authors contribute and the names will be recognized by many. They are Stephen Hume, Alexandra Morton, Betty Keller, Rosella Leslie, Otto Langer and Don Staniford. This book was published in 2004 but will, in my opinion, never go out of date.

[chris gadsden]

Did you see this poll in the Parksville Oceanside Star? http://www2.canada.com/oceansidestar/index.html
There is also a recent article on this page also.