Tuesday, 19 November 2019

Drew Chery - Was I Wrong About Fish Farming? Yes.


Hi Drew Cherry

In your above column that asks for comments, you mention the ‘jobs and revenue’ spin so commonly stated by fish farms but that is actually false. Your link is: https://www.intrafish.com/commentary/was-i-wrong-about-salmon-farming-/2-1-708899?fbclid=IwAR1Abxywy0RKyy0C8ym8pJL5g6vwc_WHuaw2x-nSGjy95u-AQtDbz1PM5uw.

You have to crunch the numbers to find the truth.

Here are my comments: this is just one post I have made on this communications’ spin that dates all the way back to the 1970s: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/11/brett-bundale-26-million-salmon-die.html.

It wasn’t right then and it’s not right now. But fish farms keep spewing it out and govts fall for it around the world, rather than doing their homework. Then, 20 years after the farms go in the public hates them.

The second link in the post is for the east coast of Canada, and I can tell you that the Inka Milewski article is persuasive and clear that not only do fish farms bring only a fraction of the jobs they claim, these  numbers will collapse some 80% more when Norway’s automation gets to east coast Canada. She is particularly good on social licence analysis. I suggest reading it as it is very interesting.

The third link in the post takes you to the BC Stats reports on jobs and revenue. In BC, industry’s employment claim is almost 400% higher than it actually is, the govt’s figure being 1800. I used to do that kind of number crunching when I worked for the BC govt. The link to the tables also covers the revenue claim pointing out that revenue far exceeds GDP in BC and thus most revenue leaves the province and goes back to Norway to shareholders, but leaving our ocean defiled.

So, the jobs and revenue spin is just that: spin.

And my list of on-land fish farms now has more than 300 on-land farms around the world. The fourth link in the  post directs you to the list.

I’d say the story is different from what is claimed by the industry, and in the long run, if they don’t get on land, the zero social licence they have for in-water, will wipe them out. Atlantic Sapphire here we come.

DC (Dennis) Reid


Saturday, 16 November 2019

Brett Bundale - 2.6 Million Salmon Die - Fish Farms Aren't about Jobs and Revenue


HI Chronicle Herald


Here is something for you/Bundale to investigate: fish farms tell govts that they bring jobs and revenue, and govts fall for it all over the world. But it isn’t true.

I have found that the employment is far lower than they say it will be and that it is going to decline 80% more in Canada as the Norwegian style automated fish farms bring their technology to NL, etc.

Here is an article that addresses the jobs issue in your area: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/07/fish-farm-problems-on-global-scale-inka.html.

It also addresses the issue of revenue. The reality is that contribution to GDP is far below industry revenue, with the profit going back to Norway for distribution to shareholders. The host country is left with environmentally degraded ocean and nothing more.

In BC, the stats are generated by the BC Stats people, and their report says, 1800 jobs, while industry inflates the figure to 7000, or almost 400% higher than it actually is. I used to write the same kind of analysis when I worked for the BC govt in Treasury Board Staff.

Here are the figures from the last two reports. Note that, among other things, employment and GDP contributions is, again, way below revenue, hence the money goes out of Canada. The 1800 job figure has declined over the last 20 years, and you can multiply that figure by .2 to arrive at the actual employment in the industry when the automation gets here: 1800 X .2 = 360. Puny employment, huge environmental damage, puny GDP.

See: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/03/mar-21-2019-bc-stats-report-2016.html. Item 10 deals with GDP versus revenue. The bottom of the post deals with job numbers and Norway jobs, leading to 80% down in the coming years.

Fish farms need to be on land. Fish farms say it can’t be done. This is like their jobs and revenue spin – it isn’t true. My list has 300 on-land fish farms around the world, while fish farms say it isn’t possible, ie, BS.


Brett might want to revisit these issues. If all you are left with is destroyed ocean, why bother with in-ocean fish farms. Put them on land.

DC Reid

Thursday, 14 November 2019

PRV - First Nation Sues DFO... Yes, Again, After Winning Twice Before. Yes, for a Third Time.

The Namgis are suing DFO to stop it allowing PRV infected Atlantic salmon be put in fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago (BA).

See: https://www.trailtimes.ca/news/namgis-first-nation-sues-dfo-again-says-they-arent-protecting-wild-salmon/?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=7a25dc6706-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_13_11_15&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-7a25dc6706-166907249&mc_cid=7a25dc6706&mc_eid=5777c92bcd.

Here is what the Namgis have to say - do note DFO is refusing to use evidence and science. Yes, that is what they say they use... but don't:

"“Sadly the good faith we demonstrated throughout the consultation process was not reflected in the conduct of the DFO officials,” explained Chief Svanvik. “DFO did not respond to many information requests, gave us incomplete drafts of documents and did not respond to information we supplied about our title, rights and reliance on wild salmon. DFO did not complete the required analysis of impact on our constitutionally protected rights. Submissions from our experts were ignored. We attended two full-day meetings to discuss the science of PRV with DFO and we brought five experts on PRV. DFO refused to bring their scientists, saying it wasn’t worth it to ‘re-hash’ the science with us.”


“We are a small First Nation but the importance of wild salmon to our people and to our future generations, and indeed, the health of the ecosystem that all British Columbians share, means we can not stand by while DFO fails to protect and conserve wild salmon.”"


Yes, that says 'DFO refused to bring their own scientists, saying it wasn't worth it to 're-hash' the science with us.' And the Namgis brought five experts. As in DFO refuses to use science and evidence. Yes, this is the opposite of what they say they use, as in S&E, or is that S&M?

Well, I don't think anyone else was confused about S&M. And on S&E, it is clear that DFO is closed on the subject and won't consider the S&E from the other side. You will note that this does not deal with the precautionary principle (PP) either.

As the wild salmon of BC harvest this year was only 2.8% of 1993 when 35M were harvested - 1M in 2019 - wild salmon are now in a crisis, and DFO is intransigent on this and other issues. Not to mention that wild salmon are in crisis after 50 years of DFO mismanagement.

They should not be allowed to be sued three times for PRV, and still not using the PP to save crisis level wild salmon. But there is more:

"The relase [sic] also noted that “Under this PRV Policy, smolts are to be tested for two supposed ‘strains’ of PRV prior to transfer into open net pens but will not be tested for a supposedly ‘native strain’ of PRV. DFO has not produced any evidence that such a ‘native strain’ of PRV exists. DFO will not prohibit stocking fish farms with fish infected with PRV.

And as you may guess:

"“This is a flagrant disregard of the precautionary principle, scientific research, our constitutionally protected title and rights, and the findings of the Federal Court,” says Svanvik via press release." He is part of the Namgis.


DFO had been chastised for not consulting the Namgis, who, most reasonably, agreed to a four month consultation agreement, after winning twice in court. Guess what happened?
This:

“As soon as we signed the consultation agreement, DFO breached that agreement the very next day by announcing an ‘interim’ policy without any ‘consultation’, says Chief Svanvik. ‘Then after four months of supposed consultation, DFO announced the exact same policy.”

That is why the Namgis have no choice but to take DFO to court to stop PRV infected smolts FOR THE THIRD TIME!!

Wouldn’t that make you mad? It makes me mad. 

Finally, do remember this is DFO who says they use S&E, even though it is more like B&S. Doesn’t it make you want to fire a few of the recalcitrant staffers? Is it just me who notices that we pay their salaries… and they kill our salmon?

Maybe, if we didn't pay their salaries... they wouldn't kill our salmon. Hmmmmm.

Let's get the Wild Salmon Advisory Council, a made in BC staff structure, and give it some cash to get on with freshwater habitat restoration.

Please tell Horgan he has this legitimate avenue to move forward. Salmon are in crisis, and we need our Premier to save them. 

PLEASE SEND HIM A NOTE:

John Horgan: John Horgan (premier@gov.bc.ca)