Sunday, 18 March 2018

DFO Fibs on Farmed Salmon Escapes - BC

When you say something you know is not true, we call this a lie. In DFO's case, let's just call it a fib. Currently (the original date is 17/10/17, but it was sent in Mar 2018), DFO has forwarded to the Sport Fish Advisory Board a document for review which has in it, about escaped farmed salmon in BC, the following quote:

Under Atlantic Salmon Watch Program on page 6: “There is a very low likelihood of Atlantic salmon establishing in Pacific waters based on numerous failed attempts to introduce Atlantic salmon to this coast in the past. Since 1991, the Atlantic Salmon Watch Program has found no evidence of established Atlantic salmon populations in BC. Nevertheless, it remains important to be vigilant and ensure establishment does not occur. Your reports will help in determining priority rivers for the Atlantic Salmon Watch swims. DFO shares information about all reported sightings on our website. Thank you for your help in monitoring BC waters. 

The First Issue is: those failed attempts to establish Atlantics in BC in the past. DFO is not telling you that those attempts are from as much as 113 years ago, in 1905. This is hardly rigourous, recent science. And DFO is abundantly aware of  John Volpe's work in the '90s and early 2000s, with a paper as recently as 2014, that has shown not only that Atlantic Salmon can invade BC rivers, that in fact, they have done so. On Vancouver Island, of rivers with multiple species of salmon checked, 97% of them have farmed Atlantic salmon, of multiple generations. This is shocking, and DFO says it isn't happening.

You will find several posts on this site on Volpe's work in December 2017 and other months. Here is one from December: And here is a paper on BC escapes from Otto Langer, who used to be a scientist at DFO:

Not only does DFO not seem to remember Volpe, or Langer, it actively did its best to inhibit Volpe's research into escape potential and spawning success. The best account of this is in a David Suzuki Foundation document produced for laymen, as in all of us sport fishers: Note this is a DFO link, but DFO can't find it.

While the whole report is on the issue of escapes and DFO trying to prevent research, read the preface at the beginning if you are pressed for time. It says that at the last minute, two days before Volpe was to begin work, DFO refused to give him Atlantic Salmon for his research. It also shut down his spawning channel it had agreed to on the Little Qualicum River. And the report notes that DFO only does research that helps farmed salmon producers. Little wonder why it has no evidence of escapes.

Volpe had no choice but to set up a spawning channel at UVic, and scrounge up some Atlantics from the industry. One of his experiments was with the aggression shown between Atlantics and BC steelhead. He found, as all fishers know, that steelhead are aggressive fish, more so than the Atlantics, and came to the conclusion that the reason those early plants did not take is that steelhead and native fish out competed the alien fish in the rivers.

Volpe's research showing Atlantics in the BC rivers now, is because steelhead are in so few numbers that the aggression between species is far lower. DFO knows this research as it has been out for years. This is not new. It is DFO fibbing.

And, the bottom line is that, today, the absolute lowest number of escaped Atlantic salmon in BC, is 153,000 per year. The range of 'escape/leakage' is .3% to 5%, and the low end calculation is thus:  85 farms X 600,000 fish/farm X .003 = 153,000.

In other words a shocking number of escapes occur in BC, even using the most conservative escape rate to calculate them. And they are not reported. The Langer document gives links to an ongoing litany of escapes in BC. DFO can't seem to find any of them. Hmm.

Now, let's move to the Second Issue: that DFO has found no evidence of established Atlantics in BC. Well, this one is just straight false. There is that string of papers from Volpe, and from DFO's own Langer, and do a quick Google of escaped farmed salmon in BC, and you will find more than a dozen articles/papers on the subject:

But DFO can't seem to do a 10 second search, nor find its own documents. I did two posts on a suppressed DFO study in NL, by Hamoutene et al: DFO didn't publish it, and it had to be leaked by DFO staffers to outsiders, and that is how I have it. It found the old DFO mantra of: farmed fish can't escape, can't survive, can't feed, can't enter freshwater, can't spawn, progeny can't spawn. But they didn't actually go up rivers to find nothing. Hmm.

The Suzuki doc, and other sources, points out that DFO intentionally hasn't looked in BC, so little wonder it has 'no evidence'. And the Atlantic Salmon Watch Program was beggared with so little financial help, it couldn't do anything, and that DFO has orphaned the program. So, DFO is stringing together a long line of fibbing, meaning saying things it knows that are not true.

One final thing: I drafted 5- to 10-thousand minister's letters when I worked for the BC government, so I love reading someone else do the fine art of fibbing. In the Atlantic Watch paragraph it moves from no Atlantic plants grew to, the next sentence, since 1991 the program has found no Atlantics. What is suggested by this structure is that the first subject leads to the second subject and means the first subject is around 1991. But neither of these things are true. I wrote this kind of crafty stuff every day. It's a hoot, unless the other side is doing it to you... like here.

Here are some other papers on this topic, see 9 and 10:

 1. Escapes:

2. 2002 News -

3. Salmon escapes in Norway, 2013:

4. Langer on Harper gutting the Fisheries Act, and a bio:

5. Norwegians in BC, MacLean's, 2009:

6. Broughton Archiplelago, 2010: "In 2002, the spawning run of pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago off northeast Vancouver Island decreased from 3.6 million to 147,000—four per cent of its population the year before. Biologists pointed to sea lice from salmon farms as the culprit. Juvenile salmon, called smolts, leave the rivers where they are born and are forced to run a gauntlet of salmon farms once they reach the archipelago, where they are exposed to high numbers of sea lice."

7. Escapes, BC, 2017:

8. And why did Norwegian companies, Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood come to Canada in the first place? They came to Canada/Chile/Etc. because of weaker laws "The report Fishy Business: The Economics of Salmon Farming In BC notes that in the late 1980s, Norwegian companies were faced with strict environmental regulations and farm size restrictions in their own country, so they decided to expand in countries where regulations were less strict (i.e. Canada, Chile)."

9. DFO can't seem to find much of anything on escapes, other than they don't exist - because it isn't looking/doing science. And Minister Dominic LeBlanc says everything to do with fish farms is 'evidence based' meaning science. I'd say it is the opposite way around. Fib, fib, fib.

Do note, though, that they did some swimming in 2011/12. They found zero fish - in many of the rivers swum by Volpe where Atlantics were identified: Hmm.

10. Oh and there is a Volpe/Morton paper stating that DFO effectively abandoned the Atlantic sightings program and even before that it was known to under report escapes by 40%. See this post, at the bottom: Take the link and read this paper: The quote is on page 9.

Wednesday, 14 March 2018

DFO Asleep at the Switches - Take II

[[Please note, I will be correcting this and other posts. Volpe did not work for DFO. But he was heavily involved with DFO as it was to give him Atlantic salmon and use of the Little Qualicum River.  It welched out late in the game. See this post for the link to the Squzuki 40 pager on the subject of Atlantics in BC Rivers: To Come.]]

The paper,  'Spatial and temporal distribution of Atlantic salmon after experimental release from sea cage sites in NL', has not been published, only leaked to NL commentators who distributed it widely and so I have a copy. When DFO stuff has to be leaked, it is not a good thing - for us and our environment. Here is their snippet of info - not the paper:

In reading the paper for the last post (sorry, while I have a PDF, I can't seem to load it onto this blog), many pieces of the paper jumped out as 'surprising'.

So I went to the DFO page to try to find a link but couldn't find one - as noted, it was leaked. What I did find is images of the various scientists, for example, Dounia Hamoutene. When you look at the scientists, they look just like everyone else, and no doubt have some intention of doing their job well. Except for one thing: we know from the various posts on Kristi Miller, and the recent one of Stan P., that DFO itself has actions that corrupt the situation. Miller is on the record on Youtube video of criticizing the department under the Harper government. She had a manager tell her she should not be looking at fish farm diseases as it was irresponsible to find anything against them because DFO supported them.

See this link to the text on Miller:

And Stan P. has been categorical about the non-transparency of the process to find that sockeye 'can't catch IHN', when DFO has refused to give the science people on the committee the 'robust' research to look at and form an informed opinion - nor put it on their site, while claiming the process is transparent on its site. Here is a piece I wrote, and there is another one several days earlier:
When you uncover as much dirt on DFO as has come across the 'doorstep' of the internet to me, it is very hard not to be cynical and angered.

These kind of problems make the observer believe nothing that DFO says, because of its conflict in supporting fish farms. So, when I look at Hamoutene's image, and there are many other people on:, it is hard to square the situation of her looking like every one else, and we all try to do our best, but being in a system that has prejudged the outcome.

Is the person in the wrong? I don't think so. I used to work for government and like any job, the last thing you want is to lose it. It could be a permanent blight and problem on one's record, not to mention the loss of income and pensionable service.

But the point is that DFO wants in-ocean fish farms, though everyone else doesn't. DFO can't seem to get that the rest of the world is moving on - to land - because they are fed up with the problems of in-ocean fish farms. This has been happening for many years now - in-ocean are the dying breed.

You'd think that the politicians could come clear of fish farms, but the Minister, in this case, Dominic LeBlanc, was corrupted by his Ottawa bureaucrats who think no one knows more than them, and they see jobs, and fish. They don't care about wild salmon and they don't care what the citizens who have to live with fish farms think.

As I have said before: before putting a fish farm in anyone's ocean, put one in the Rideau Canal beside the Parliament Buildings, and one in the Ottawa River below and LeBlanc would soon come to hate them as much as everyone else.

BC politicians, Horgan, Premier, and Weaver, leader of the Greens, are both against in-ocean fish farms, and plan to take them out of the water. I just went to see an MLA, and will see more. Along with several MPs, for example, Fin Donnelly. (NDP) His staff asked me to work with them about a map of on-land fish farms. That's not hard as my list is now up to, if you can believe it, 208 on-land fish farm systems, comprising 20,000 actual fish farms around the globe. When is enough enough?

But I caught one thing in the DFO Asleep at the Switches post that begs more text: 'most farmed individuals released at the post-smolt stage or later do not home, as they lack imprinting to natal rivers. Instead they move with the prevailing currents and indiscriminately move into nearby freshwaters to spawn once they reach maturity (Hansen, 2006).'

Oh, cavalierly saying they spawn in local freshwater, while that is one thing that DFO says in its on-going spin that can't happen. Hmm. While we, on the west coast, read news about them found in the Fraser, one of the most important sockeye rivers in the world, and as much as 50 miles up the Skagit in WA, with them caught by sport anglers in Tofino, and in Campbell River - as much as 250 km from the Cooke Aqua, Cypress Island site that broke up in August and Cooke blamed on an eclipse. Of 305,000 fish, 200,000 escaped with 100,000 caught by the Lummi tribe.

The point is: none of these thing happen in on-land farms. It's so simple. 

Thursday, 8 March 2018

Disease Spreads from Farm to Farm - Norway, and Around the World

It's pretty obvious from the graphic below that fish farm diseases spread in the water from farm to farm. In inside waters, sounds and inlets, only one end of the channel is open. This makes tidal flow slower, in most cases, but even at speeds as low as 2- to 4-knots, that means over a tide change, which are roughly every six hours, that disease viruses/bacteria, are spread 12- to 24-nautical miles up to four times a day. This means 48 nautical miles per day in total because there are, typically, two floods and two ebb tides.

Little wonder that in the confined spaces of inside waters, that both upstream and downstream fish farms spread diseases/lice to one another rapidly.

To show that 2- to 4-knots is very conservative, as well as 48 nautical miles (54 miles or 87.1 km), in BC, Sechelt Narrows has currents exceeding 15 knots. Think how far a fish farm disease could be spread in areas with high tidal speeds.

Now, look at this graph from Norway:

It is from this press item: From the contacts in it, you can find the paper, if you wish.

Here is what was done: "Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) researchers monitored ocean currents in the Romsdalsfjord and in Nord-Trondelag county in 2014. Data from the observations were then transferred to a digital model, where researchers depicted virtual virus particles in order to understand how the disease can spread from one fish farm to another."

Currents in Seymour Narrows, just south of the Broughton Archipelago, can reach 14 knots. Broughton, itself, is not as speedy, but not far from Seymour.

What else did the researchers in Norway say? This: "“If the ocean currents flow in a direction that results in one fish farm spreading the virus to others, one possibility may be to kill the fish. Farmers could also stop using multiple fish farms at the same time to create small firebreaks in a production area," said Lars Gansel, an associate professor at NTNU, noting research indicates firebreaks -- large designated coastal areas without fish farms such as Buholmsråsa in Sor-Trondelag -- do work."

So, let's kill the Broughton Archipelago farmed fish, or phase them out to create a 'firebreak' zone for Fraser River salmon.

Wednesday, 7 March 2018

On-land Prospects - 'Have Never Looked Better' - DNB

DNB Bank from Norway released a paper in 2017 on the prospects for on-land fish farms:

According to them, things 'have never looked better'.

"Prospects have never looked better. With supply growth from traditional salmon farming dwindling  due to biological concerns and tighter regulatory controls and the cost of acquiring new licences skyrocketing, the prospects for non-traditional farming, such as land-based, look better than ever in our view. With low supply growth, salmon prices are likely to stay high for the next two years, reducing the risk of a price collapse before volumes from a land-based project reach the market. At the same time, production costs for traditional and land-based farming are starting to converge as biological costs for sea-based farming increase and technological advances reduce land-based costs"
The big Norwegian fish farms, Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood, have always said that on-land is a non-starter because it costs too much to get to harvest. And of course they were wrong, and wanted to stay in the ocean because they could/can flush their sewage, lice, diseases, chemicals and so on away for free, something that consumers have increasing said no to. We taxpayers absorb this huge cost that I estimate is $10.4B for BC alone. See this post as it shows how I made the calculation and also notes that the other end of conservative is three times as much, yes, more than $30 Billion sewage cost in BC:
On-land does away with the sewage cost as the sewage is used as a revenue stream, producing methane/electricity or sold as fertilizer, among other uses. And in the case of Canada the three new farms coming on stream in the USA, Atlantic Sapphire, Whole Oceans and the third in Belfast Maine, have transport costs on their sides as well, meaning a severe impact on in-ocean fish farms and their employment as the biggest market, the USA, will be taken away from them.
The DNB report goes on to say they looked at 20 operations, ignoring that I have now found 218 on-land fish farm systems:

I have asked them for their list and will let you know whether they are on my list or not. 

DNB's next point is:

"Substantial advances in recirculation technology. Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) have seen significant technological improvements over the past 5–10 years. Paradoxically, these advances have been driven by the large investments in smolt production made by traditional salmon farmers. The switch from ‘flow through’ systems to ‘recirculation’ has reduced water need by 99% and in recirculation the effectiveness has increased 3–4x since 2008. Research suggests an estimated production costs for a mid-sized (3-5kt) land-based facility at NOK37/kg, close to
traditional sea-based farming."

Note that the sale price of in-ocean Norwegian exceeded NOK 66 in 2018, or $10.56/kilo. You will note the significant differential, leading to large profits. Furthermore, DNB notes that 'challenges' meaning disease, lice and other costly factors are making the cost per kilo production come to meet one another of in-ocean and on-land.

"We identify 150kt of land-based projects in the pipeline by 2020. We have carried out a deep dive into land-based projects and identified planned production of 150kt by 2020 from 20+ projects around the world. About 10 projects produced a combined ~7kt in 2016. If all planned land-based expansion materialises, land-based production in 2020 would rival the output from Canada and make land-based the fourth largest ‘region'."

Note that what is not stated is that they are only dealing in Atlantic Salmon, not the many other species that I have found. This is a typical Norwegian perspective. Looked at as a global industry producing fish, the output is far far above 150KT. But also note that their on-land figure - far lower than the actual for all species - will rival  Canada (west and east coat) and make it the ,fourth largest region'. In other words, the writing is on the wall and Canadian production is going to suffer a very large negative for sales into the USA (AS, Whole Oceans, Belfast) in only two years.

DNB goes on: "Running the numbers reveals decent risk/reward. We have made internal rate of return (IRR) calculations on land-based versus traditional farming, which suggests attractive
returns for land-based projects where transport advantages exist."

This is precisely the case for Canadian fish farms when compared with the big three coming on stream in the USA. Hasta la Vista BC fish farmers, unless you see the light and move to land right away.

Another interesting sidelight are the suppliers of on-land fish farm products. In order of market share: Billund Aquaculture, Kruger Kaldnes, AKVA Group, Aquatech Solutions,Inter Aqua Advance, Others (Pentair, UK, for example).

On page 31, you will find a cost comparison of in-ocean and on-land, being pretty much the same.

Page 36 shows there are 90 on-land facilities in Norway.

Page 37 shows the companies using RAS for smolt production.

On page 49 the paper discusses the licence situation in Norway:

"Will development licences increase Norwegian production volumes by 30%+?

The opportunity to apply for development licences in Norway is a government initiative to foster  innovation. The current number of development licences awaiting an outcome has reached 304 (18+ awarded already). 30%+ of additional volume would be added if all these applications were accepted. So far, we have observed the approval process to be quite lengthy. Six applications totalling 41 licences have been rejected so far (source: Directorate of Fisheries). The process along with a tightly defined scope including the criteria of a unique and innovative concept means it will take some time before volumes hit the market and we expect the number of awarded licences to be restricted."
You will recall that Norway cut off in-ocean licences in 2014 because it grew fed up with the environmental damage caused by in-ocean fish farming.

Monday, 5 March 2018

Otto Langer on Farmed Fish - Escapes Through Leakage 500,000 in BC, Updated Mar 10, 2018

Fish farms say WA closing fish farms is an emotional response to a single escape, failing to point out that in BC 'leakage/escape' releases as many as 500,000 farmed fish per year without them being reported:

Read below, or read the Langer document at:

First, though, Otto Langer makes the important point about raising salmon cheaply: "Feed is expensive, and the production objective is to maximize the conversion of feed into growth while
minimizing loss of fish due to disease, parasitism and escapes. To this end,
farmed salmon brood stock are selected for performance traits such as high
food conversion rate, rapid growth, delayed age of maturity, and resistance
to diseases and parasites. Their behaviour, physiology and morphology are
significantly altered from those of wild fish, partly through genetic selection
and partly through the rearing they experience (Fleming et al. 1994, Gross 1998)."

Now, the thing is that fish farms are constantly crowing about their declining food conversion rates, mostly to show that they are not killing off the worlds fish, that Daniel Pauley/Tim Cashion point out they have  been so successful at that 19, out of 20 global forage fish stocks are either collapsing, badly managed or both. Check out the Sea Around Us document on reduction fisheries:

So, the point is that fish farms have no choice, having killed off so many global fish stocks, that they don't have many left to pillage. And, on the other side, to reduce costs, they are raising fish genetically grown to use less fish in growing. Technically, this is not a GMO issue, but I leave it to a reader, who may be concerned about GMO products to mull this over.

Now let's move on to escapes. Just how how many  do escape in BC? Well, Langer says this: "How many fish are escaping? No one really knows. The 30,689 fish per year that are reported as escaped (average from 1991-1998; Noakes et al. 2000) is surely a significant underestimate. Some members of the industry estimate a 0.3-0.5% escape rate (Wilson 2000a); however, various sources of data suggest that 2-5% or even higher may be likely. Leakage, or continuous small-scale escape, may itself exceed 0.5%. Some escapes are quite massive, such as the 390,000 farmed chinook salmon escaping in BC in 1989 (Wilson 2000b), or the 360,000 Atlantic salmon escaping from a single farm in Washington State in July 1997 (Gross 1998). A conservative estimate of 3% per year, the upper limit recommended by the 1997 Salmon Aquaculture Review, suggests that...140 roughly 350,000 fish may have escaped in BC in 2000 (calculations partially based on quotes that industry claims the 35,000 escapees by 24 August 2000represent 0.3% of their production; Hauka 2000, Hasselback 2000). There is need for a more reliable method of assessing escapement rates."

This is staggering, and why Volpe, who has done the studies on Atlantics in Van Isle rivers, says that 97% of Island rivers surveyed, with multiple Pacific salmonids, have farmed Atlantic escapers. Hard to believe it can be that high.

So, the mid-ground on this one is 1% for leakage/escape events. And here is the calculation: 85 Farms X 600,000 fish X .01 = 500,000 fish escape per year in BC. That is also staggering.
So, what else? This: "several major escapes of Atlantic salmon during the summer of 2000 led the Minister of Fisheries to repeal 5 of the licenses."
This means that the precedent for eliminating fish farms in the ocean has already been set in BC. Today, 2018, is time to get the fish farms out of our waters that their 'externalities' like sewage are a far greater problem, and John Horgan/Andrew Weaver want them out. And look at this post to see more escapes in BC:

So,  and this: "Adult Atlantic salmon have been captured in the Bering Sea (Brodeur and Busby 1998) and in marine and fresh waters of Alaska despite the absence of fish farms in Alaska (W. Loy, Anchorage Daily News May 2002). In 2001 ASW recorded 179 adult Atlantic salmon in the year’s marine catch, 116 in 13 BC rivers, and 35 in the Alaska marine In the previous year Atlantic salmon made up 1.6% of the catch of salmon in a 24-hour fishery in the Strait of Georgia due to an undetected escape (K. Scarfo, President West Coast Trollers Association, 4 August 2000). Unfortunately, farmed chinook and coho are more difficult to identify and go largely undetected in catch records."

And, this: " In the past, some industry and government leaders have denied that  colonization is possible, yet by 1996 all life stages of Atlantic salmon (alevins, parr, and adults) had been reported escaping and by 1998 adults had been found in 75 rivers. By 1999, feral (wild-born) juvenile Atlantic salmon were found in several rivers (Volpe et al. 2000). Escaped Atlantic salmon can therefore survive in the Pacific Ocean, migrate at an appropriate time into fresh water, perform appropriate intraspecific reproductive beha-viour, produce embryos and alevins that survive, and the resulting juveniles can successfully obtain food, avoid predators and survive across years. What remains to be shown is whether the juveniles will reach adulthood and reproduce. The complete colonization cycle has therefore not been shown, but this is a likely outcome based on mathematical models of invasion probabilities (Gross 2000). The central issue about Atlantic salmon is probably not whether they can colonize, but the degree of impact that they may have on wild Pacific salmon stocks (and other species) if they do."

And the stats on ISA disease are: "ISA is a highly contagious and lethal viral disease that spreads by horizontal transmission (adult to adult) in both freshwater and seawater. The disease was unknown to science before appearing as an epidemic in the Norwegian salmon farming industry in 1984. Within seven years, it had spread to 101 farms and
remains a problem today. In Canada, ISA was first observed in New Brunswick in 1996 and spread to 21 farm sites by 1997, and 35 by 1998. Despite widespread culling, 17 sites remain contaminated. In 1999, wild Atlantic salmon in New Brunswick were found for the first time to have the disease, and escaped farmed salmon entering freshwater to spawn were found to carryit. In Scotland, ISA was first reported in 1998. By 1999, about 10% of all Scottish sites were infected, and the disease was found in wild salmon parr. In
Chile, ISA was reported in early 2000 in farmed coho salmon. In Maine, USA, ISA appeared in early 2001 and greatly impacted the farming industry. The virus is believed to be carried in mucus, urine and feces and its amplification in farms therefore creates contagious areas for nearby wild salmon, in addition to its transmission by escapees."

The escape number alone is reason to get fish farms out of the BC ocean. And you will recall Jeremy Dunn crowing about how well managed BC fish farms are. But, losing a half million fish per year is not managing well.

Here is another estimate of BC escapes, note it being .5- to 1%:  "Research done in BC estimates that 0.5 to 1 percent of juvenile Atlantic salmon in production “leak” from their pens each year.6 If we assume that 1% of the approximately 80,000 tonnes of farmed salmon currently produced each year in BC is leaked, this translates into approximately 160,000 additional farmed salmon escaping into BC’s marine environment on a yearly basis."


 And the penalties, you ask? Peanuts:  Meanwhile, very little in the way of penalties or fines are levied against the offending companies. For instance, the most recent Annual Inspection Report on Marine Finfish Aquaculture Sites (2008) issued by BCMAL shows only one violation for “failure to report a possible escape” with a fine of $173.8

Also from the last source, farmed and dangerous.

 And, what does this mean about the laws?  "With escapes on the rise in recent years, incomplete data on the full extent of escapes and minimal repercussions for escape events, it’s clear that BC’s salmon farming regulations are not adequate. These lax regulations are an example of how the government continues to enable salmon farming companies to externalize the costs of a dirty, unsustainable industry onto the environment and people of British Columbia."

Also from the last source.

Saturday, 3 March 2018

Domnic LeBlanc Against Wild Pacific Salmon - Freshwater Habitat Restoration Far too Low

Hi Dominic LeBlanc

A few comments on your response to Fin Donnelly on fish farms, Mar 1, 2018:

  1. DFO has abrogated its responsibility for west coast salmon for more than 40 years and has been managing them into extinction. Your money below does not address the most important issue: freshwater habitat restoration. I have written on fisheries policy for 25 years. In my estimate, if both BC and DFO put up $100M over 10 years each, giving the money to the PSF, that would be a good start.
  2. Why are you appealing a court decision that prevents you from putting PRV infected fish farm smolts in the water? Your own scientist, Kristi Miller has shown that PRV causes HSMI, and the Morton work shows a higher PRV load in wild fish in fish farms areas, causing them to die before spawning.
  3. I have done several posts on your weak laws: BC and all its residents want fish farms out of the water. You need to wake up, before BC residents will no longer vote for you.
  4. Thinking that science changes anything is naïve, hubris or a manipulation. You attitude is the naïve, you think science makes a difference. DFO has the hubris: we can solve any problem. Fish farms say, we want science, and when it comes in, says we aren’t to blame… we need more science, and so on; this is the manipulation.
  5. Putting fish farms on land solves virtually all their problems. It is time to take the enlightened approach and put them there.
  6. BC is now the only jurisdiction on the Pacific west coast that allows fish farms, with WA phasing them out the other day. How bad is the situation: In Alaska where they forbid fish farms, the commercial catch was a record 243 M fish in 2017; BC’s catch was almost non-existent. BC salmon numbers experienced their lowest returns in decades. It is DFO’s fault for abrogating its responsibilities for four decades.
  7. You closed sport fishing areas for 2018, for the Killer Whales. What you fail to note was that the reason for having to protect chinook for them, that DFO has failed miserably in its responsibility to put enough salmon in the ocean. DFO has been so remiss there aren't enough chinook for 76 killer whales. You should be ashamed of that.

Here is the exchange: 

Mr. Fin Donnelly (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Wild Fish Conservancy released lab results showing 100% of escaped salmon tested were infected with the highly contagious virus PRV.
    The Liberal rhetoric about strong regulations and environmental protection for salmon mean nothing. The burden of proof that PRV does not cause harm to wild salmon does not rest on the fish. The minister needs to act. When will the minister get these disease-ridden farms off the wild salmon migration route and on land?
    Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows very well that our government is deeply concerned about the state of the wild salmon populations in British Columbia. We have invested literally tens of millions of dollars in enhanced science, monitoring, auditing process to ensure the protection of wild Pacific salmon remains a priority for our government. It is something our Pacific caucus has talked to us about over and over again.
    We understand there needs to be robust aquaculture regulations. We understand that that conservation protection officers and increased monitoring is important, and we are going to work with the Government of British Columbia to ensure we have the toughest rules in place to protect this industry.

DC Reid

Tuesday, 27 February 2018

Most Popular Posts - Feb 2018

I have listed the most popular posts on Fish Farm News and Science, as in, this blog, since August 2016. They are posted on the first day of the following month, or close to it.

This posts lists the most popular posts on this site during February 2018. There have been some big responses to a number of these posts.

1. New Science Committee? - Don' Bother Dominic: Literally thousands of page views.

2. 217 On Land Fish Farm Systems, comprising 20,000 actual fish farms on land around the world: This is the all time champion posts that receives so many pageviews that it is the most popular of all time.

3. Fish Farm Spin - DC Reid, READ THIS SUMMARY ARTICLE: Again, literally thousands of page views in February. If you read only one fish farm post this year, make it this one, as I put together the entire overview with more than 30 references, so that you can know that what is said is sound and that you can go to the sources and read and confirm them for yourself.

4. December 2016, Most Popular Posts:

5. January 2017, Most Popular Posts:

6. Lice Kill Wild Salmon - a review article: Like Big Tobacco, Big Fish Farms don't seem to know they have a lice problem. But this is a review article from Norway, where they started and provides a good overview to this big problem.

7. Wild BC Salmon Plan - Contact Your MLA:  Send this link, or copy and paste the article into an email and send it to your MLA, along with John Horgan, Lana Popham, and Andrew Weaver. Again, thousands of page views.

8. BC Salmon Farmers Association - Even More 'Spin': Get in touch with your MLA and tell him/her that fish farms are very small in BC despite their claiming the opposite. Read the figures for yourself.

9. Big Tobacco, Big Fish Farms - Pretty Much the Same Thing: My jaw dropped to the floor when this document told me that BC fish farms have used the same PR firm, Hill and Knowlton, that Big Tobacco used, to try and turn around that everyone hates in-ocean fish farms. I think your jaw will do the same.