Print

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

[shuswapsteve]

Bob, Dave and SS, the beginning of the end, all the work by many is starting to pay off. No wonder SS did not want to meet when the Wild Salmon Caravan was in Kamloops.

https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/horgans-tone-salmon-farming-unsettling-marine-harv/

The article you posted is inaccurate. Cohen didn’t recommend locating fish farms away from migratory routes. He did make other recommendations though. If you or other wild salmon conservationists haven’t read the Cohen Final Report which was released back in 2012 here is the section being referred to here:

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/bcp-pco/CP32-93-2012-3-eng.pdf

See Recommendations #14 to 21

Funny how you are after me for not finding the time to attend “wild salmon caravans”, but you and many other fish farm critics (and apparently some media reporters now) have had 5 years to review the Cohen Final Report. Why is that? You should also understand the difference between consultation and consent or between consultation and veto.

[Fisherbob]

http://www.surreynowleader.com/opinion/b-c-views-horgan-fumbles-salmon-farm-threat/

[Dave]

Good ol' Tom Another column I agree with.

[shuswapsteve]

http://www.surreynowleader.com/opinion/b-c-views-horgan-fumbles-salmon-farm-threat/

Neither Popham nor Horgan demonstrated a detailed understanding of the Cohen Commission’s findings.

Shocker

[chris gadsden]

The article you posted is inaccurate. Cohen didn’t recommend locating fish farms away from migratory routes. He did make other recommendations though. If you or other wild salmon conservationists haven’t read the Cohen Final Report which was released back in 2012 here is the section being referred to here:

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/bcp-pco/CP32-93-2012-3-eng.pdf

See Recommendations #14 to 21

Funny how you are after me for not finding the time to attend “wild salmon caravans”, but you and many other fish farm critics (and apparently some media reporters now) have had 5 years to review the Cohen Final Report. Why is that? You should also understand the difference between consultation and consent or between consultation and veto.

The sad part to all of this is in my mind and many others is the majority of those that defend fish farms either work or worked for them, have investments in FF companies, worked at one time or work now for FOC so they have no choice but defend FOC policies.

We all know how FOC mishandles the fishery on the east coast and now we feel are doing the same here on the Pacific, shame is a polite word for it.

[chris gadsden]

http://www.surreynowleader.com/opinion/b-c-views-horgan-fumbles-salmon-farm-threat/

Black Press political reporter Tom Fletcher, whose wife is a Public Affairs Officer for the BC Liberal Government, no wonder he defends liberal policies.

[Dave]

The sad part to all of this is in my mind and many others is the majority of those that defend fish farms either work or worked for them, have investments in FF companies, worked at one time or work now for FOC so they have no choice but defend FOC policies.

Do you honestly believe because I once worked for DFO I have no choice but to support fish farms?
Have you ever considered that because of my previous work and interactions with people far brighter than me is the very reason I do support them?

Fish farming won't go away because BC has a new government but I do think a few farms will be relocated to areas where FN will welcome them.

[shuswapsteve]

The sad part to all of this is in my mind and many others is the majority of those that defend fish farms either work or worked for them, have investments in FF companies, worked at one time or work now for FOC so they have no choice but defend FOC policies.

We all know how FOC mishandles the fishery on the east coast and now we feel are doing the same here on the Pacific, shame is a polite word for it.

That’s a total blanket statement based mostly on conjecture. While there are likely those that have worked for aquaculture and government at some point of their careers you are defending the lack of knowledge of basic Cohen facts by environmentalists by throwing people at FOC under the bus. Take responsibility for things you and other environmentalists say which are dead wrong on instead of saying FOC employees have no choice to defend FOC policies.

Critics of BC open net pen aquaculture would serve themselves better if they stayed with the facts (all, not just selected), avoided hyperbole, distance themselves from those that are actually dragging them down (i.e. Morton) and work collaboratively with government and university scientists into these issues. It’s difficult (not impossible) to have a discussion about this because you have formed your conclusion based on selecting information that favours that conclusion without looking at the whole picture and all the evidence. You aren’t even aware of the Cohen recommendations - instead side with sources which are 100% incorrect and it can be easily demonstrated as such.  There are likely many in government that want the same thing as you do, but don’t agree with the approach.

[wildmanyeah]

So I used to hate fish farms but one morning I woke up and walked down my stairs, looked out my kitchen window into my nabours house. There kitchen window also looks straight into our as we live in a townhouse. On a wall in there kitchen they have a caulk board where they do a weekly dinner menu. On it they had salmon scheduled twice for dinner in one week. 

They don't fish as most people who consume salmon now don't.  With out Fish Farms where would they get there fish? how much pressure would this put on wild stocks? Could these people one day put up enough of a stink that they close down a rec fishery for only a commercial managed one? If they can't get salmon from Canadian fish farms would they turn to american or south american ones?

[Fisherbob]

http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-fish-farming-done-responsibly/

[Easywater]

The article you posted is inaccurate. Cohen didn’t recommend locating fish farms away from migratory routes. He did make other recommendations though. If you or other wild salmon conservationists haven’t read the Cohen Final Report which was released back in 2012 here is the section being referred to here:

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/bcp-pco/CP32-93-2012-3-eng.pdf

See Recommendations #14 to 21

Funny how you are after me for not finding the time to attend “wild salmon caravans”, but you and many other fish farm critics (and apparently some media reporters now) have had 5 years to review the Cohen Final Report. Why is that? You should also understand the difference between consultation and consent or between consultation and veto.

Recommendation #14 says:

Beginning immediately and continuing until at least September 30, 2020, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should ensure that
■ the maximum duration of any licence issued under the Pacific Aquaculture Regulations  for a net-pen salmon farm in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) does not exceed one year;
■ DFO does not issue new licences for netpen salmon farms in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2); and
■ DFO does not permit increases in production at any existing net-pen salmon farm in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2).

Discovery Islands start just north of Campbell River (Cortes, Quadra) - the main migratory route for emerging salmon.

Recommendation 15:
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should explicitly consider proximity to migrating Fraser River sockeye when siting salmon farms.

Recommendation 19:

On September 30, 2020, the minister of fisheries and oceans should prohibit net-pen salmon farming in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) unless he or she
is satisfied that such farms pose at most a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon. The minister’s decision should summarize the
information relied on and include detailed reasons. The decision should be published on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ website.

If that isn't good enough for you - page 92:

the state of scientific research about sockeye–fish farm interactions is not sufficiently developed to rule out diseases and pathogens on salmon farms as contributing to the decline of Fraser River sockeye and posing future risks.
Fraser River sockeye face some likelihood of harm from disease and pathogens on salmon farms. However, I cannot quantify the likelihood of harm occurring. That requires further study.

Salmon farms along the sockeye migration route in the Discovery Islands have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases which can have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye.

Disease can cause significant population declines, and, in some situations – for example, if a disease were to wipe out a vulnerable stock of Fraser River sockeye – such effects could be irreversible.
I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed by salmon farms to Fraser River sockeye salmon is serious or irreversible.

You forgot recommendation #3:

The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.

[Dave]

Some more from the NDP about fish farms ... Chris, take note.


http://www.canada.com/news/politics/ottawa+denies+minister+claims+about+fish+farm+complaint/15326615/story.html

[chris gadsden]

So I used to hate fish farms but one morning I woke up and walked down my stairs, looked out my kitchen window into my nabours house. There kitchen window also looks straight into our as we live in a townhouse. On a wall in there kitchen they have a caulk board where they do a weekly dinner menu. On it they had salmon scheduled twice for dinner in one week. 

They don't fish as most people who consume salmon now don't.  With out Fish Farms where would they get there fish? how much pressure would this put on wild stocks? Could these people one day put up enough of a stink that they close down a rec fishery for only a commercial managed one? If they can't get salmon from Canadian fish farms would they turn to american or south american ones?

if FOC would do a better job of looking after our wild stocks and their habitat we would not have to rely on FF and also lets put them on land. Look how they have allowed so many projects to go ahead that have allowed that have destroyed fish habitat. I know the readers of this thread are well aware of them so no need to list.

[chris gadsden]

Recommendation #14 says:

Beginning immediately and continuing until at least September 30, 2020, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should ensure that
■ the maximum duration of any licence issued under the Pacific Aquaculture Regulations  for a net-pen salmon farm in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) does not exceed one year;
■ DFO does not issue new licences for netpen salmon farms in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2); and
■ DFO does not permit increases in production at any existing net-pen salmon farm in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2).

Discovery Islands start just north of Campbell River (Cortes, Quadra) - the main migratory route for emerging salmon.

Recommendation 15:
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should explicitly consider proximity to migrating Fraser River sockeye when siting salmon farms.

Recommendation 19:

On September 30, 2020, the minister of fisheries and oceans should prohibit net-pen salmon farming in the Discovery Islands (fish health sub-zone 3-2) unless he or she
is satisfied that such farms pose at most a minimal risk of serious harm to the health of migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon. The minister’s decision should summarize the
information relied on and include detailed reasons. The decision should be published on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ website.

If that isn't good enough for you - page 92:

the state of scientific research about sockeye–fish farm interactions is not sufficiently developed to rule out diseases and pathogens on salmon farms as contributing to the decline of Fraser River sockeye and posing future risks.
Fraser River sockeye face some likelihood of harm from disease and pathogens on salmon farms. However, I cannot quantify the likelihood of harm occurring. That requires further study.

Salmon farms along the sockeye migration route in the Discovery Islands have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases which can have a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye.

Disease can cause significant population declines, and, in some situations – for example, if a disease were to wipe out a vulnerable stock of Fraser River sockeye – such effects could be irreversible.
I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed by salmon farms to Fraser River sockeye salmon is serious or irreversible.

You forgot recommendation #3:

The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.

Thanks for this lets see how the PP gang deals with this, they seem to have answers for everything, especially those that have worked for FOC and still do.

[chris gadsden]

More to keep the boys busy answering and scratching their heads.

Farmed Salmon disease jump to Wild Salmon ... overview of a new NINA (Norways environmental department ) report .
Åse Helen Garseth is a researcher at the Veterinary Institute and a member of the RCL.
In Norway, we have a stock of approximately 350 million (700,000 tonnes) of farmed Atlantic salmon distributed at approx. 600 active locations along the coast. During the sea phase, the salmon is bred mainly in open cages. This farming situation, where a large number of individuals are kept in a relatively small volume, involves on the one hand infection exchange between individuals within the cage, and on the other hand that the infection can spread to the surrounding environment and wild fish. In addition, a large number of farmed fish escapes every year and a proportion of these find their way up the rivers. The described situation is the reason why infectious diseases in fish farming are considered a threat to wild salmonids.
Infectious status in the aquaculture industry
In the project Lack of salmon fish in the sea, conducted by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and FHF in 2013, it was shown that 6-7% of farmed fish died as a result of infectious diseases during the period between sea and slaughter. Infections are thus one of the major biological and economic challenges in the aquaculture industry. The Veterinary Institute has for a number of years described the number of cases of the various fish diseases in its annual Fisheries Report.
Although many of the important bacterial diseases in the industry are controlled using vaccines, it remains to get knowledge and control of several microorganisms and parasites. In 2016, the Veterinary Institute diagnosed 360 cases of viral disease in the sea (pancreatic disease - PD 138, infectious pancreatic necrosis - IPN 19, infectious salmon anemia - ILA 12, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation - HSMB 101 and cardiomyopathy syndrome - CMS 90) (Fish Health Report). The number of cases of non-notifiable diseases IPN, CMS and HSMB is probably higher, since the diagnoses can also be made by private laboratories and fish health services.
It has taken decades to come where we are today in terms of knowledge about salmon lice and interaction wild-farming. We must acknowledge that research on the effects of other infectious diseases in fish farming today is hardly the starting point.
Outbreaks of disease at a site with nearly 600,000 individuals provide a significant development and excretion of environmental pollution. Several of the important contaminants in fish are robust in the marine environment and spread horizontally from cages to cages, from plant to plant, and to transport of fish. Therefore, wild salmon that resides in the same marine environment is also exposed to a contagion pressure from the aquaculture industry. In addition, as described, infected escaped fish constitute a challenge. Runaway farmed fish go up in rivers also outside areas of farming, and surveys have so far shown that there is higher odds for detecting infection of escaped fish than in wild fish. The Veterinary Institute has conducted studies in which the relationship between virus from farmed fish and wild salmon fish has been analyzed. These show that viruses are exchanged between wild fish and farmed fish.
Infection status of wild salmonids
Knowledge of the health of wild fish is generated through passive and active health monitoring, and through research. The Veterinary Institute takes care of the public's responsibility to resolve disease suspicion and inexplicable mortality in wild fish. Such clarifications constitute the passive part of the health surveillance and contribute both to increasing knowledge about the health and disease of wild fish, and to maintain healthy populations. Disease detection in wild fish is also an important contribution to the preparedness and monitoring of the interaction between infections in farmed and wild fish populations.
The active monitoring programs are carried out on behalf of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. Traditionally, the results from these programs have provided an important evidence of the freedom or presence of specific infections. The prevalence of Gyrodactylus salaris has been monitored in this way over several years.
Monitored since 2012
Since 2012, the Institute of Marine Research and the Veterinary Institute has carried out health surveillance of wild anadrom salmon fish on behalf of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. The monitoring program has mainly focused on viruses that are common and cause disease challenges in the aquaculture industry, but have only partially followed the same template as used for other surveillance programs. The reason for this is that repeated monitoring of agents, which one can not easily detect in wild fish, has no utility as long as you do not know why you are not detecting them.
In the period 2012-2014, the incidence of viruses giving ILA (ILAV), PD (SAV), IPN (IPNV), HSMB (PRV) and CMS (PMCV) was investigated. The Veterinary Institute had largely already carried out mapping of these viruses and thus had a basis for assessing the usefulness of the monitoring. The main findings of the Veterinary Institute's part of health monitoring are summarized in the table below.
Virus IPNV SAV ISAV PMCV PRV
Veterinary Institute's Health Monitoring
Number tested