Sunday, 29 January 2012

Halibut Harvest Figures, BC - 2012

Read the document below (formatting lost in posting). It is the summary of deliberations of the Halibut Commission that concluded in Alaska in January, 2012.

Of interest, the TAC in 2011 was 7.65 million pounds for 2B (Canada). The TAC for 2012 is 7.04 million pounds, down 8% from 2011.

DFO has not, as of Feb 5, informed the sport sector on its catch/retention numbers, nor the season dates. As the TAC is down and DFO has not done as promised - find a fair system for the 88/12% split issue between the commercial and sport sectors - uncertainty prevails, particularly for charter and lodge operations who need the numbers to make their bookings and livings.

All anglers will remember that in 2011 the season started a month late in March, and ended almost three months early, Sept. 5. As the TAC is down, and DFO is not talking, 2012 looks not good.


Conference Board Report
88th Annual Meeting
January 23rd – 27th 2012
Anchorage, Alaska
United States
United States Continued
Alaska Charter Association
St. George Fisherman’s Association
St. Paul Fishermen’s Association
Alaska Longline Fisherman’s Association
Tribal Government of St. Paul
Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association
United Fishermen’s Marketing Association
United Cook Inlet Drift Association
Aleute Corp
Deep Creek Charter Association
APICADA Vessel Inc.
Area 3B /4A False Pass
Area 4 Harvesters Alliance
Central Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association
Cordova District Fishermen United
Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union of the Pacific
Annieville Halibut Association
Edmonds Veteran Indev Longliners
Area F Troll Association
Fishing Vessel Owners Assoc.
Freezer Longliner Coalition
BC Halibut Longline Fisherman’s Assoc.
Halibut Coalition
Juneau Charter Boat Operator Assoc.
Canadian Sablefish Association
Ditidaht First Nation
Homer Charter Association
Gulf Crab Fishermen’s Association
K Bay Fishermen Association
Gulf Trollers Association
Kodiak Longliners Association
Halibut Advisory Board
Kodiak Vessel Owners Association
Hook and Line Groundfish Association
Lower Elwa
Northern Halibut Producer’s Assoc.
Lumi Indian Nation
Northern Trollers Association
Makah Fisheries Management
Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council
North Pacific Fisheries Association
Pacific Coast Fishing Vessel Owners Guild
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
Pacific Trollers Association
Prince William Sound Charter Boat Assoc.
Quiliute Tribe
Sport Fishing Advisory Board – Main
Sport Fishing Advisory Board - South
Quinault Indian Nation
Steveston Halibut Assoc.
Seafood Producers Coop
SE Alaska Fishermen’s Alliance
Ucluelet First Nation
SE Alaska Guides Association
Sitka Halibut & Blackcod Marketing Assoc.
Vancouver Island Longline Assoc.
Sitka Charter Boat Owners Association
The United States section accredited 38 organizations for participation for the 2012 Conference Board proceedings.
The Canada section accredited 21 organizations for participation for the 2012 Conference Board proceedings.
On the Canadian side, Chuck Ashcroft was selected as Co-Chair.
On the United States side, Robert Alverson was selected as Chair.
1. Megan Peterson: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Megan gave a brief presentation on her efforts to study whale interactions with the US Longline fleets. The interactions with Killer Whales and Sperm Whales are the focus of her studies. She was available for discussions throughout the day with the participants of the conference board.
2. CONCUR: IPHC Performance Review: Mr. John Fields US State Department:
Mr. Fields explained the process of the review being brought forward by the participating countries. The review is expected to generate a focused report that will, among other objectives:
i) Assess recent performance of the Commission relative to achievement of the goals set out in the Treaty and its various amendments.
ii) Identify effective practices already used by the Commission and highlight opportunities to incorporate (1) best practices employed by other leading international fisheries and oceans management bodies charged with implementing agreements and (2) new approaches put forward by stakeholders;
iii) Consider, in particular, opportunities to strengthen Commission governance, including stakeholder involvement, information sharing, policy development, decision-making processes and general Commission practices.
The Conference Board recommends an opening date of March 17 with a start time of 12:00 noon and a closing date of November 18.
The Conference Board supports the seven staff recommendations for the Area 2A commercial openings which begin on June 27. For the Area 2A directed commercial fishery, the staff recommends an opening pattern similar to 2011, starting the last week of June with a series of 10-hour periods, with fishing period limits. Therefore we recommend the following series for 2012: June 27, July 11, July 25, August 8, August 22, September 5, and September 19.
The following are comments from the Canadian and U.S. delegates regarding season dates:
South East Alaska preferred an earlier opening date of March 3 for marketing purposes and to minimize interactions with Sperm Whales. However, the groups from SE Alaska compromised on a March 17 opening.
Nov 18 closing date: Integrated fisheries in Canada are still ongoing with Halibut responsibilities still attached, requiring release along with being charged for the appropriate weight of the fish, upon reaching the official closing date. A later date allows the Canadians to retain their halibut and reduces their bycatch penalties.
The opening date of March 17th falls on a Saturday which enhances sales for the beginning of the season and is also a date that coincides with good tides.
The Conference Board supported the following catch limits for 2012 except for Area 2B and 3A
2A 0.99 million pounds
2B 7.04 million pounds
2C 2.62 million pounds
3A 11.92 million pounds
3B 5.07 million pounds
4A 1.57 million pounds
4B 1.87 million pounds
4CDE 3.095 million pounds
Total 34.175 million pounds
The Conference Board supported staff recommendations in all areas except for area 2B, 3A and 4CDE. The Conference Board U.S. and Canadian sections were in disagreement with their recommendations regarding areas 3A and 2B. The recommendation for 4CDE was accepted by both the US and Canadian Sections of the Conference Board. The total Conference Board recommendation is 34,175,000 lbs, which is 1,040,000 lbs over the IPHC staff recommendation of 33,135,000 lbs.
The Canadian and U.S. sections were in disagreement over the harvest limits in 2B and 3A. The Canadian section supported the staff recommendation in area 2b of 6.63 million lbs provided that 3A was designated as an area of special concern. The intent would be that IPHC would establish a lower harvest rate in area 3A. A 16.1% harvest rate which is used in other western areas would have generated a harvest limit of 6.9 million lbs. This proposed action was unanimously objected to by the US section and was supported by the Canadian section 13 in favour, 5 opposed, and 1 abstention.
The Canadian and U.S. sections put forward two additional motions: The Canadians recommended a harvest level of 7.04 m lbs which was supported by Canada with only 1 objection, and opposed by the US section with 15 objections and 19 abstentions.
The US section unanimously supported the staff recommendation in 3A for 11.92 m lbs while the Canadian section opposed with 10 objections and 10 abstentions.
The following are the motions and rationale for the above discussion:
MOTION 1: The Conference Board recommends that the Area 2B catch limit for 2012 be set at 6.633 million pounds and that the Commissioners and IPHC staff designate all of Area 3 an “area of special concern”.
It is important to note that Canada has never accepted the IPHC’s proposed apportionment model. As we have indicated at previous IPHC Annual Meetings, Canada is concerned that the IPHC staff’s proposed apportionment methodology is strongly influenced by assumptions about relative catchability, selectivity and depth-distribution of fish among regulatory areas. The scientific uncertainties surrounding relative catchability and selectivity are unlikely to be resolved. Canada feels that the apportionment methodology is fundamentally flawed and consideration should be given to moving away from attempting to resolve the problem of allocating catch among regulatory areas by purely scientific means and consider other examples of resource sharing arrangements utilized internationally.
There is a real reluctance on the part of the Area 2B delegation to take a position on another areas catch limit; however, in the end Canada feels this discussion needed to happen for Area 3.
Canada believes a reduction in the Area 2B catch limit in 2012 is unwarranted. The Area 2B survey WPUE has been stable over past few years and the commercial WPUE has been going up in recent years and reached a new high in 2011.
Regardless, Canada is willing to accept a 2012 catch limit for Area 2B of 6.633 million pounds if the Commissioners and IPHC staff give consideration to designating Area 3 an “area of special
concern”. Area 3 is the geographic centre of the halibut stock and Canada is very concerned, given what happens in that area impacts Area 2B. Canada believes the declines in WPUE in Area 3 and the lack of progress on addressing bycatch (mobile and fixed gear) in all the western areas warrants a more risk averse approach for all of Area 3.
Canada has addressed halibut bycatch in its regulatory area in both the fixed and mobile gear commercial groundfish fisheries. Canada has addressed the issue of unsustainable, non-directed halibut mortalities that affect the coastwide biomass. The level of bycatch and discard mortality occurring in areas 3 and 4 has a considerable negative impact on Area 2’s exploitable biomass. Canada should not and must not be penalized for uncontrolled bycatch in other regulatory areas, which IPHC staff have indicated could be costing Area 2B approximately 1 million pounds of lost yield in each year based on current, and what Canada believes may be questionable, estimates of bycatch.
MOTION 2: Whereas the Conference Board is not willing to recommend Area 3 be designated an “area of special concern”: the Canadian section recommends an Area 2B catch limit of 7.04 million pounds for 2012, which is halfway between the Trendless Q results and the Wobble SQ results.
Canada recommends an Area 2B catch limit of 7.04 million pounds for 2012, which is half way between the Trendless results and the Wobble SQ results.
Canada has concerns with adopting the Wobble SQ model fit for 2012. Specifically, Canada has concerns about the accuracy and precision of estimates given the range of error associated with the proposed Wobble SQ model fit -- the errors bars on the Wobble SQ model fit are exceptionally large, and in fact extends off the graph at one point and also encompasses the entire Trendless model fit estimates and error bars (see page 170-171 of the Bluebook).
In addition, it is our understanding that stock assessment models are highly non-linear and typically mis-specified, and therefore differences of AIC values among models (i.e., ΔAIC) can only be interpreted via simulation. The IPHC procedure applies standard AIC theory based on linear models, which Canada believes is inappropriate as a stand‐alone model selection criterion in this context; recommendation for 2012. Further, Canada also believes that the rationale that adopting Wobble SQ is more precautionary and is also inappropriate as such decisions should be addressed as part of the harvest policy, not as part of the model fit.
Further, Canada has addressed halibut bycatch in its regulatory area. The level of bycatch and discard mortality occurring in areas 3 and 4 has a considerable negative impact on Area 2’s exploitable biomass. Canada should not and must not be penalized for uncontrolled bycatch in other regulatory areas, which IPHC staff have indicated could be costing Area 2B approximately 1 million pounds of lost yield in each year based on current, and what Canada believes may be questionable, estimates of bycatch.
The conference board rationale for a 3.095 million lb catch limit for 4CDE is as follows:
On page 208 of the blue book the CEY from 2002 to 2011 varies from a high of 13.820 m lbs to 1.970 m lbs. The CEY since 2004 in all but one year has been approximately 3.7 m lbs. and has shown an increase in the last 2 consecutive years to 3.9 m lbs. Additionally on page 149 of the
bb the total biomass has been increasing and the total numbers of fish seem stable at a relatively high number. The commercial CPUE for 2010 was 188 lbs per skate and 2011 the Commercial CPUE was 187 lbs per skate. The Conference Board believes in this particular area that it is reasonable to apply the past practice of slow-up, fast down policy. This results in the Conference Board recommended level of 3.095 m lbs.
The Conference Board total catch recommendation is 1,040,000 lbs over the IPHC staff recommendation, however, this falls within the parameters of 95% EBIO confidence intervals. (see page 167 bb)
The Conference Board approved unanimously the following staff regulatory proposals which are listed on page 205 and 206 of the blue book.
Catch sharing plans: 2A, 2B, 4CDE
The Conference Board on three separate motions recommend the staff recommendations.
Proposed changes to the IPHC regulations
Canadian commercial logbook regulations – The conference board adopted the staff recommendation.
The IPHC staff recommends changing the IPHC logbook regulations for the Canadian fishery to match the British Columbia Integrated Groundfish Fishing Log. The recommended change would be to delete the options of recording the location as defined as a direction and distance from a point of land and of catch weights recorded by day. Therefore, location would be recorded as latitude and longitude and catch weights would be recorded by set.
Area 2A logbook options – The conference board adopted the staff recommendation.
The IPHC staff recommends adding an option to allow fishers to use the ODFW Oregon Fixed
Gear Logbook for the Area 2A commercial fishery. The IPHC and ODFW staffs worked together to ensure that this logbook meets the needs of IPHC as well as ODFW.
NPFMC Regulatory Proposal:
Area 2C sport fishing regulations for the charter vessels
The IPHC has received a request from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Appendix 1) concerning management measures to restrict the charter halibut harvest in Area 2C,
in order to stay within the Council’s Guideline Harvest Level (GHL). This request would change
the existing regulation of a one-fish, maximum size limit of 37 inches for halibut retained in the
charter sport fishery in Area 2C. The requested regulation change is to implement a “reverse slot limit” allowing retention of one fish, ≤45 inches or ≥ 68 inches in length, with head on. In addition, as in the past, if the halibut was filleted the entire carcass, must be retained on board the vessel until all fillets were off loaded.
The Conference Board entertained a motion from the Alaska Charter Boat Association to support the NPFMC reverse slot limit recommendation. This motion failed in the U.S. section with 9 in favour, 12 opposed and 12 abstentions. The Canadian section chose to abstain on this vote.
The principle objection to adoption of this motion was the lack of information that would indicate discard mortalities generated from the proposed action. In lieu of supporting the NPFMC proposal the Conference entertained the following motion:
Prior to implementation a reverse slot limit; the Conference Board requests that IPHC Staff work with ADF&G to develop estimates of area 2c and 3a charter wastage; and that wastage estimates be included when estimating charter harvest.
This passed in the U.S. section with 17 in favour, 6 opposed and 11 abstentions. The Canadian section voted 12 in favour with 4 abstentions.
The conference board passed a second motion unanimously regarding this subject which is as follows:
The Conference Board recommends that ADF&G and IPHC work with the charter industry to develop careful release provisions for area 2c and 3a charter fishery.
This was not intended as a regulatory action but as an education and community outreach action initially.
There is a minority report to the original motion that failed from all of the U.S. charter boat associations as follows:
On behalf of Alaska’s charter industry representatives at the IPHC conference board, we appreciate the opportunity to provide additional comments in the form of a minority report regarding the proposed reverse slot limit (U45/O68) management measure proposed for Area 2C and the related items that followed by the CB motion and discussion on that issue. As indicated by comments submitted on behalf of the Southeast Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO), this proposed management measure was recommended, through a motion that was adopted with no objection, by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) following a lengthy discussion during their December meeting in Anchorage.
We reassert our support for this measure, confident that there was thorough consideration by the Charter Management Implementation Committee with information and analysis provided by analysis by Mr. Scott Meyer of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). This recommendation came after numerous discussions with area 2C operators and careful deliberation by the members of that committee.
This measure was proposed as a way to mitigate the significant harm done to 2C operators resulting from the 37” maximum size limit rule adopted in 2011. Again, merely the opportunity or lack thereof has a tremendous effect on charter business models. As a result we believe that a reverse slot limit, as recommended by NPFMC, is the best option available to the Southeast Alaska charter fleet for the 2012 fishing season. In selecting the U45/O68 option, the NPFMC council balanced both interests of conservation and economic impact.
After reviewing the projections made by Mr. Meyer, we concur that the NPFMC provided a reasonable recommendation that mitigated economic harm while considering critical conservation considerations. We continue to support their motion for this management measure, knowing that the most conservative assumptions (45,000+ fish and 20% high-grading) will ensure that 2C charter operators fish within GHL.
With regard to the subsequent motions and discussions, we argue that new regulations should not be held hostage to wastage accounting when none currently exists. We assert that this would constitute and unjustifiable disparity to the SE charter fleet. We concur that collecting and analyzing data for wastage among all sectors and areas is essential for making more accurate management decisions in the future. However, given the nature of charter business models, delaying a liberalized management measure, for the purposes of data collection, will negate any potential benefit that could result from it.
Lastly, we agree with and support an effort to develop an education program for safe handling practices intended to minimize mortality resulting from catch and release for sport and commercial sectors (reference Merrigan catch limit comments, 12/30/2011 – item D).
/s/ Tom Ohaus, Sitka Charter Boat Owners Association /s/ Ken Larson, Prince William Sound Charter Boat Association /s/ Richard Yamada, Juneau Charter Boat Owners Association /s/ Bryan Bondioli, Alaska Charter Association /s/ Aaron Mahoney, Deep Creek Charter Association /s/ Gary Ault, Homer Charter Association /s/ Heath Hilyard, Southeast Alaska Guides Organization
1. Kevin Hogan: Mandatory Weighing of all Removals:
The conference board did not act on the Hogan proposal.
The Conference Board proposed a similar action from last year and reconfirms our recommendation to the commissioners to direct the IPHC staff to develop a regulatory proposal for consideration at the 2013 annual meeting to use jaw tags as an accounting tool for all IPHC regulatory areas. Staff should look at appropriateness for each area/fishery.
2. Richard Yamada: Revise Regulations to exempt mutilation prohibition from vessels already exempted from possession limits:
After discussion with the enforcement representatives Mr. Yamada withdrew the proposal and will work with enforcement for an amended proposal for 2013.
3. Rex Murphy: Abundance based management of U32 removals:
This proposal would attempt to establish an abundance based level of harvest for U32 halibut. After considerable discussion the conference board took no action.
4. Tom Gemmell: Control 2C/3A Guided Sport Harvest to Allocation in 2012
The conference board addressed this in previous actions.
The conference board adopted the following 5 motions with regards to bycatch:
Motion 1:
Whereas: the bycatch of juvenile halibut in fisheries aimed at other species is responsible for a substantial proportion of total halibut mortalities; and
Whereas: these mortalities have a major impact on both the total and harvestable biomass of halibut; and
Whereas: the International Pacific Halibut Convention authorizes the Commission to “permit, limit, regulate or prohibit, the incidental catch of halibut that may be taken, retained, possessed, or landed from each area or portion of an area, by vessels fishing for other species of fish”; and
Whereas: the Convention also gives the parties power to “close to all taking of halibut in such portion or portions of an area or areas as the International Pacific Halibut Commission finds to be populated by small, immature halibut and designates as nursery grounds”;
Therefore be it resolved: that the IPHC Conference Board calls on the Commissioners to authorize the preparation of a staff report to the 2013 annual meeting which would identify areas which might be designated as nursery grounds, and assess the impact on future estimates of total and harvestable biomass that would result from the closure of these areas to all taking of halibut.
MOTION 2: The Conference Board re-affirm its 2010 and 2011 recommendations for IPHC to advocate for bycatch reductions. The Conference Board also confirms its support for the Commissioner-led bycatch initiative approved at the 2011 annual meeting and updated for 2012. Consistent with the bycatch initiative’s first objective, the Conference Board recommends that IPHC work with the U.S. and Canada to develop defined minimum standards of accuracy for monitoring all removals from directed and non-directed fisheries (commercial, recreational, subsistence/personal use).
At the 2010 IPHC Annual Meeting in Seattle, the Conference Board recommended that: “Commissioners direct IPHC staff to retain experts (e.g., stock assessment scientists, statisticians) to undertake an independent peer review to define a minimum standard for catch monitoring in all fisheries (commercial, recreational, subsistence/personal use) where halibut mortalities occur (directed or bycatch) and review the catch accounting and catch monitoring
programs and procedures in place in these fisheries to determine if they meet the defined minimum standard. The terms of reference for the review would be developed with input from IPHC staff and management agencies and stakeholders from both countries and address factors such as, but not limited to, bycatch rates by fishery and bycatch “hot spots”. Commissioners did not action this recommendation to IPHC staff.
At the 2011 IPHC Annual Meeting in Victoria, the Conference Board unanimously supported the following motion:
The Conference Board believes that accurate accounting of all removals is critical for development of accurate stock assessment, and for understanding the health of the halibut resource and the exploitable biomass available to the directed fisheries. Therefore the Conference Board recommends that the IPHC strongly encourages NMFS to implement the Restructured Observer Program in 2013 as planned, not 2014.
The Conference Board recommends that the IPHC request NMFS to use its regulatory authority to deploy additional observers on vessels harvesting groundfish in the GOA, including those vessels under 60 ft., to improve the estimation of halibut bycatch that the IPHC requires to manage the halibut stocks.
The Conference Board recommends that the IPHC advocates for bycatch reduction and provides necessary staff expertise to support the NPFMC review of the current bycatch levels in the GOA and BS and the affects of this bycatch on the halibut resource and the catch limits available to the directed fisheries in the U.S. and Canada.
The Conference Board recommends that the IPHC work with the U.S. and Canada to define minimum standards of accuracy for monitoring fisheries where halibut are encountered.
The Commissioner-led initiative on bycatch represents a significant step in the right direction and Canada would like the Conference Board to recommend, consistent with the bycatch initiative’s first objective, IPHC work with the U.S. and Canada to develop defined minimum standards of accuracy for monitoring all removals from directed and non-directed fisheries (commercial, recreational, subsistence/personal use).
Motion 3:
The conference board requests IPHC staff evaluate priority needs for at sea observer coverage in order to improve estimates of halibut bycatch. These priorities should be forwarded to the NPFMC for consideration as they prioritize observer deployment in 2013 under the restructured observer program.
Motion 4:
Conference board requests that directed halibut industry be invited to identify an individual to participate as a panel member in the April 24/25 joint halibut bycatch workshop. (Please confer with the co-chairs of the Conference Board)
Motion 5:
The Conference board requests the IPHC initiate a review of Halibut Bycatch mortality associated with the ADF&G managed fisheries in state waters:
-Mortality associated with these fisheries is a significant deduction in several areas.
-The mortality estimates have not been updated for many years.
-There have been significant changes in gear and harvest levels in many of these fisheries.
Note: There are presumed halibut bycatch mortalities that have not been updated since the 1980s which occur in the Alaskan instate fisheries.
Other issues: The Conference Board adopted the following two motions:
1. Slow up fast down or slow up full down Motion:
The Conference Board requests IPHC commissioners review the slow –up full down policy prior to the fall 2012 interim meeting. We recommend considering:
1. Re-instating the original slow-up, fast down policy (50% down – 33% up)
2. Modifying the slow-up, full down to allow 50% of any increase.
3. Using different approaches based on area specific indicators.
This is responsive to:
-Several proposals requesting the review
-Slow-up, fast down has been an important tool to reduce volatility while refining the numerous stock assessment and apportionment variations experienced over the past 10 years.
-No other west coast fishery is managed under a harvest policy as asymmetrical as slow up-full down.
2. The Conference Board recommends that IPHC staff work with appropriate agencies to develop wastage and mortality estimates for all recreational fisheries in IPHC management areas.
3. Catch limit comment #2, presented to the IPHC by Mike Haggren, was moved as a proposed IPHC regulatory change to request; that the IPHC staff prepare a paper for the 2013 Annual Meeting that addresses the positive and negative aspects of releasing halibut over 72 inches. The proposal was supported without objection by both sections of the Conference Board.
Addendum: Canadian Stakeholder discussion document
2012 Canadian Stakeholder Discussion Paper
Catch Limit Allocation Principles
Catch limit allocations must provide for fair and sustainable access to the Pacific Halibut resource. Stock assessment and advice must be scientifically sound, and account for all removals by area. When determining catch limit allocations now and into the future, Canada proposes that the following principles be considered:
The total coastwide removals limit must be conservation‐based.
Parties to the treaty must be directly accountable for all removals.
All removals from both directed1 and non‐directed2 fisheries must be monitored at a defined minimum standard of accuracy.
Actions in one area that result in negative impacts to another area must be mitigated.
Consistent with these principles Canada has made significant advancements in catch monitoring and accountability for total removals, but continues to be impacted by management decisions in other regulatory areas. For example, the level of bycatch and discard mortality occurring in areas 3 and 4 has a considerable negative impact on Area 2’s exploitable biomass. While work to better understand the sources and impacts of bycatch has begun in earnest through the Commission’s Halibut Bycatch Working Group, progress must still be made to (1) better account for bycatch mortality through improved catch monitoring and (2) ensure that responsibility for bycatch mortality is carried by the national party in whose jurisdiction the mortalities have occurred. To advance these concerns, Canada continues to support ongoing work aimed at better understanding the implications of current halibut bycatch and exploring possible actions to address these concerns. The following objectives were accepted by the Commission in 2011 and Canada supports continuing this work in 2012:
To gain a better understanding of the amount of halibut bycatch occurring in each regulatory area.
To gain a better understanding of the impact of bycatch on the halibut resource and on the available harvest.
To explore options for reducing the overall level of halibut bycatch.
To explore options for mitigating the impact of bycatch in one regulatory area on the available harvest in other regulatory areas.
Canada does not accept the IPHC’s apportionment methodology
Currently, the IPHC estimates exploitable biomass in each regulatory area as a percentage of the estimated coastwide exploitable biomass. The "apportionment" methodology estimates the proportion of biomass in each regulatory area as a function of the relative survey catch rate (WPUE) in each area scaled to the amount of habitat available (total bottom area between
1 Directed fisheries are those fisheries specifically engaged in harvesting Pacific Halibut
2 Non‐directed fisheries are those fisheries not specifically engaged in harvesting Pacific Halibut, but where Halibut is incidentally caught
depths of 0 and 400 fathoms). Catch limits within each regulatory area are in turn determined by applying a target harvest rate to the exploitable biomass estimated from the above calculation. While this approach uses data readily available to the IPHC staff, the methodology depends on assumptions that have not been or cannot be tested; therefore Canada is unable to support the current apportionment methods. Canada acknowledges the changes that have been made to address various concerns raised since 2007. However, the overall methodology is still unacceptable. In particular, Canada is concerned that the apportionment method incorrectly estimates exploitable biomass in regulatory areas, and that bottom area is not an appropriate surrogate for national entitlement to a migratory species, especially when the impact of large extractions of halibut biomass to the North and West of Canada are not being taken into account when calculating entitlement.
The primary concern is that use of the survey catch rate in the current apportionment method assumes constant catchability among all regulatory areas (i.e. the probability of catching a halibut is similar across ecosystems, habitat type and competitor assemblages). Hook timing adjustments made to compensate for differences in species composition are probably insufficient, as many other factors, such as bottom type and structure can affect the efficiency of survey gear in a given area. Furthermore, it is unlikely that gear selectivity is constant among regulatory areas. Selectivity is partly determined by the fishing gear but it is also a function of availability of fish to the gear. Availability may be affected by differential age and size composition of the halibut stock among areas.
In addition, the bottom area used in the apportionment method is calculated for habitat between 0‐400 fathoms. The inclusion of depths greater than 300 fathoms is to accommodate recent commercial fishing between 300‐400 fathoms in area 4, particularly area 4A. These depths are not fished to a great degree in any of the other areas, and the impact of this re‐classification of bottom area to apply in the apportionment scheme reduced Area 2B’s proportion of coast‐wide habitat by 18.5% (from 9.2% to 7.5%). Other areas declined on average by 20%, while area 4CDE increased by 20%. This highlights the extent to which the current apportionment method is influenced by selection of bottom area, which is somewhat subjective, and which has a large impact on the apportionment of biomass to regulatory areas. Furthermore, since the survey, and therefore the WPUE in each regulatory area, only covers the depth range 20‐275 fathoms, there is potential for bias in the apportionment methodology if halibut density in unsurveyed depths is different to that in surveyed depths.
Canada takes the position that the IPHC’s apportionment methodology is strongly influenced by assumptions about relative catchability, selectivity and depth‐distribution of fish among regulatory areas. Scientific uncertainties surrounding relative catchability and selectivity are unlikely to be resolvable with available resources in the near future, if at all.
Canada feels that the apportionment methodology is fundamentally flawed due to irresolvable scientific uncertainties, and perhaps consideration should be given to move away from attempting to resolve the problem of allocating catch among regulatory areas by purely scientific means and consider other examples of resource sharing arrangements utilized
internationally. This type of work would align with the IPHC’s desire to advance a Management Strategy Evaluation for Pacific Halibut.
Canada’s Position for 2012
While Canada believes that progress has been achieved in the provision of harvest advice over the past year, more work remains if we are to satisfy the principles outlined above.

Canada continues to support the stock assessment improvements aimed at ensuring direct accountability for all removals; however, as non‐directed removals of small halibut negatively impact coast‐wide fishing opportunities, additional effort is required to address the treatment of under‐26 mortality.

To ensure that all removals from directed and non‐directed fisheries are monitored at a defined minimum standard of accuracy (consistent with principle 3 above and the recommendation received from Conference Board in 2010), Canada supports the development of a bi‐lateral working group led by IPHC staff to start developing a defined minimum standard of accuracy for monitoring and reporting of halibut catch in the recreational fishery. In the future, this work can be expanded to include the development of standards for the other harvesting sectors as well (see attached proposal).

Given the intrinsic uncertainties associated with the apportionment methodology (as well as with the coastwide assessment model itself) Canada suggests that provision of harvest advice as a single catch limit derived from a single point estimate of biomass is unacceptable. Provision of risk‐based advice, in the form of decision tables or similar, that provides predicted stock status over a range of alternative management options and alternative plausible states of nature is current best practice for stock assessments in the USA and Canada. In this context, stock status implies size of the halibut stock or level of fishing mortality relative to pre‐defined reference points that are directly related to management objectives.

Canada feels a peer‐review of the Slow Up‐Fast Down/Slow Up Full Down policy should be conducted.

Canada supports the work by IPHC staff to develop a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) approach for Pacific Halibut. This process may allow both parties to the Treaty to assess the consequences of a range of management strategies or options and have the results presented in a way which illustrates the tradeoffs in performance across a range of management objectives. It is imperative that the MSE process be open, transparent and collaborative from the beginning.

Sunday, 15 January 2012

Key Document - 142 Mostly On-land, Closed, Fish Farm Systems, Along with Thousands More Firms in Europe/Russia - More Than 10,000 actual farms + the Eight Thousand in Europe - Updated - Mar 21, 2017

I am updating this post to a 2016 posting because is having difficulty saving this much data in one post - that is how many on-land fish farms I have found. The 2016 post is:

Now, the original post:

My list of mostly on-land, closed, most recirculating systems for raising fish now has 142 different systems on it (and the Jan 20, 2016 update below adds thousands of firms in Europe). This represents more than 10,000 actual farms on land, several thousand additional firms and many different species of fish. This is a milestone, and although the Norwegian fish farms, Marine Harvest, Cermaq (Mitsubishi) and Grieg Seafood say it can't be done, they are obviously wrong, and don't want to come out of the water. Enough is enough. We need our governments around the world to take fish farms out of our pristine oceans.

Denmark, for instance, has half its farms as RAS systems - recirculating aquaculture system. Added to the Kenyan system at the bottom (system 73) will bring the current number of on-land farms to 10,000 around the world. Finland never allowed fish farms in its ocean. They all have to be on land.

There is no reason anymore to have old-tech, open-net, in-ocean farms with their environmental degradation problems and open sewage in our pristine oceans. Move forward to the October to December period of 2015 because the Norwegian governement is so angered by in-ocean fish farms that it is awarding free licences for them to set up on land. In ocean licences now go for $9- to $12-million in auction. So the free on-land licences are a significant subsidy as well.

It is time to ask the question: why are fish farms raising Atlantic salmon in BC where there are five species of Pacific salmon? Why are fish farms in the ocean when all their problems can be eliminated on land? Why are fish farms raising carnivores that require the killing of many stocks of ocean fish that should be eaten by people?

Here is a new 2013 document that shows on-land, circulating systems make more money than in-ocean net-pen operations It is a very technical document, but worth the effort of crunching through it. You will note that different assumptions give different results, but the last page says it all: production of fish on-land is not more expensive than in-ocean (note that this is stated in the negative based on the initial hypothesis statement)

Here is the CAAR symposium link on other closed containment studies:

Here is the 2010 report written for SOS Marine Conservation Foundation, Technologies for Viable Salmon Aquaculture:

SOS concluded that: there is no technical or economic barrier to closed containment salmon farm aquaculture for the production of salmon. Moreover, B.C. is advantageously provisioned for catalyzing an industrial change and for retaining the new emergent industry in B.C.

Here is the link to the Seachoice on-land circulating systems released April 8, 2013:    There are an additional 6 systems here.

Here is a link to a closed containment study at the end of 2014, Dec 27:

Here is a link to the Kuterra on-land system in BC. This is a good costing document, and retailers realize the difference and will stock Kuterra salmon, but not Marine Harvest, Cermaq nor Grieg Seafood: See this link:

Updated, Feb 5, 2015: In Norway each fish farm must pay $1.69 Million to get a licence. [Now, in Dec 2015, there are those free licences to set up on land.]

In BC, because we have very low fees, ($5171.25 X 130 = $67,000), it means we are subsidizing every farm to the tune of $2 million. What this means is that Norwegian-style fish farms have no argument for not being put on land because of cost. They are subsidized now $2 million.

We taxpayers are subsidizing the entire industry of, say, 130 farms (80 operating at any given time) to the tune of $260 million. This is 400% of the entire aquaculture contribution to GPP of $61.9 Million. Fish farms need to be on land, just like the 10,000 other actual on-land farms around the world.

Note that the Norwegian in-ocean licence of $9 to $12 M, means BC is subsidizing fish farms to the tune of $1.17 to $1.56 Billion to use our pristine ocean as a free open sewer.


Updated, May, 2015 The Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute (TCFFI), is producing farmed Atlantics in, get this, Norway. See the article which has a link to the research document:
There is no need for the dinosaur old-tech in-ocean fish farms any more.

Updated, August 20, 2015, AKVA, listed below in number 26, is having its best year ever selling on-land fish farm systems, even in Norway, for Pete's sake:

Update to Oct 1, 2015: Fish 2.0, 2015, a competition for sustainable aquaculture projects. See:

Updated, Oct 3, 2015: Here is a good organization of recirculating aquculture systems, in Norway no less: It is the Nordic Network on Recirculating Aquaculture Systems.

Updated, Oct 7, 2015: Here is a Powerpoint presentation on an on-land farm for rainbow trout in Canada. Most importantly, it gives the financial figures on building, production cycle to harvest:

****Updated, Oct 14, 2015. This is a really great summary Powerpoint presentation of a good 30 on-land RAS systems presented in Nanaimo, BC, Canada, 2015, along with financials and metric tonnes: The question is: how many is enough on-land fish farms before governments pull all in-ocean farms out of the water for their high environmental damage? After all, the only monetary advantage they have is getting off Scot free from their sewage costs, and those are paid for by us, the public, $10.4 Billion in BC alone. We don't want to pay.

Updated, Oct 17, 2015. To identify any BC in-ocean farm, see this DFO link:

Updated, Oct 21, 2015: This is a cost-comparison, by Deloitte, of on-land, in-sea, and on-land and in-sea at different ages. The report says that on-land is the way of the future, because capital costs are lower than in-sea models and operating costs will drop, and growing fish at market site reduces shipping costs. It also sees a market for the three fish farm systems:

Updated Nov 11, 2015, An economic analysis of Daninsh Model Trout:

Updated Dec 30, 2015: This is the Dr. Summerfelt site for on-land farms, a USA site: A good, comprehensive site for on-land.

Updated Jan 20, 2016. The attached link lists thousands of on-land farms in Europe. Russia alone has 2500. These are in addition to the 127 I have found so far. While this report has a section on marine growth, most is about on land fish farms. See:

Updated Jan 29, 2016. This is a 2014 report by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Seafood Watch ranking system, reporting on three on-land farms: Namgis, BC, West Virginia, TCFFI, USA and Atlantic Sapphire, Denmark. It shows what goes into a sound ranking system, unlike, say, the BAPs, ASCs and so on:

Here are the systems that I have found:

1. Agrimarine - BC, closed containment, in-ocean, Chinook, Middle Bay, steelhead Lois Lake. Also operates in China, and now Japan, raising bluefin tuna in the latter, Tokai University. Also starting in Norway. See:  
2. Swift - BC, on land, Agassiz, coho, now called TriGen:
4. Aquabounty – MA, Atlantic eggs for grow-out on land. See:
5. Marine Harvest - BC - on-land hatchery, Sayward. Also Big Tree hatchery, and Prince Rupert.
6. Dr. Zohar - U of Maryland, low-density, in-sea, multi-product system. See:
7. DeVine Industries - on-land system, fish meal from vegetable protein, Michigan, Florida.
8. Technologies for Viable Salmon Aquaculture - BC, on-land fish/mara culture systems. See above.
9. Ohio State – on-land, closed-containment. U: This system supports 200 on-land, closed and pond fish farms, raising perch, bluegill and shrimp.
10. Culture Hydroponiques of Ste. Agathe des Monts – Quebec, closed, on land, recirculating. Marc Laberge. 5000 lettuce every week as a crop from fish effluent. The process purifies water so it can be recirculated to the trout, producing 200 pounds of trout fillets per week.
11. K’udas Project, Namgis First Nation – BC, Van Isle, recirculating fresh water system above the Nimpkish River hatchery. DFO is a partner. Product in 2013. See:
12.Conservation Fund, American non-profit, Freshwater Institute - Shepherdstown, West VA, Dr. Steven Summerfelt, Atlantic Salmon, recirculating system, large scale, economically viable. See:
13. Sea Grant, U of Wisconsin – Milwaukie, WI, Growing Power, Fred Binkowski, recirculating system, perch and lettuce. Uses abandoned factories. Exporting technology to poor countries.
14. Grow Fish Anywhere, GFA - Israel, 40 litres water/ kg of fish, whereas in-water systems use 5 – 7.5 K water/per pound fish. Purpose: to grow fish anywhere in the world on land, especially close to cities where people live. No pollution. Bacteria eats waste, recirculating. Dr. Vossi Tal and Dr. Jaap Van Rijn.
15. Target Marine Products - Gray Creek Hatchery, Sechelt BC. Recirculating, on-land system, Atlantic salmon smolts and white sturgeon to adult size to harvest caviar.
16. Mood Harvest – Oslo, Norway, growing salmon in oil tankers, closed containment, anywhere in world. Expects first product in 3 – 4 years. 2014-2015.
17. The Plant – Chicago, IL, John Edel, integrated, multi-trophic Aquaculture, IMTA, tilapia, grown in typical apartment building or old factories. Shave 1500km average trip of product to market, reducing CO2 emissions and transport cost. Purpose: grow fish, vegetables in cities anywhere. Working on producing 260-kilowatt power from fish and plant waste.
18. Australis Aquaculture – Turner Falls, MA, closed-container, on-land system, barramundi, eggs to 2 pound market size,, recirculating, 99% of water, fish waste donated to local farmers, raises 2 million pounds of fish per year, discharging only 15 lbs of waste per day, the equivalent of three human houses.
19. Australis Aquaculture – Vietnam, operates a different, in-ocean, low-density system, barramundi occupy <1% of cage volume. Both operations have a culture of environmental conscience in all phases of production.
20. Andalucia - tilapia, herbivorous, Industry Center of Agriculture Technical Assistance (Technova), works with a private company aiming to grow the species in greenhouses, a recirculating system in closed containers, at present in the sea.
21. Local Ocean - Hudson. NY, closed-containment, on-land, recirculating with bacterial digestion of sewage, 99%, evaporation is the only water loss, flounder, sea bream, and many other species. Plant is tripling in size with aggressive growth to North America and Western world. Dr. Van Rijin (this an offshoot of Israel project).
22. Manitoba-Canadian Model Aqua-Farm – closed system, on land, recirculating, MB, Riddell’s Roasters plant, under the Interprovincial Partnership for Sustainable Freshwater Aquaculture Development. This is intended to provide all benchmark data for a transfer to land. 2010 2013.
23. Langsand Laks Denland, on-land, closed, recirculating. Niche market for sustainable Atlantic Salmon. Another firm, Atlantic Sapphire, intends to open a US based farm at triple the size. Other Danish trout and salmon companies are also investors in Langsand. 2013 See, for 2015:
24. Astec Aquaculture Business & Science Centre – England, tropical, saltwater facilities, on land, for start-ups. Northumberland, North East England, provides an ideal base for aquaculture businesses of all sizes and at varying stages of development, with its unique combination of ‘plug in and go’ facilities and specialist business support services. .
25. InterAqua – Norway, on-land, closed, recirculating system for all species of fish.
26. AKVA – Norway, Canada, etc. – closed, on-land. Akvasmart recirculating 15 species of fish. Their growth performance is outstanding: turbot, halibut, rainbow trout. This has a good list of advantages of recirulating, including disease, temperature and water quality control, etc plus a good design of an entire plant. Mainly an in-ocean company. In 2015, having the best year even in on-land systems:
27. PR Aqua – Canada, Nanaimo, Recirculating, closed, on-land. DFO uses this in Nanaimo. See: Their customers include Marine Harvest, Big Tree, for instance, Target, Israel, 100 tonne, Tilapia, small commercial. Chile, with MH. Grey Wolf in Sechelt. Redfish Ranch, Courtenay, 100 tonne tilapia, needing 28 degree water, ie 95% recirculating, since 2001).
28. Billund AquakulturDenmark – recirculating, closed, on-land, many species. A modular system, increasing plant size by adding discrete, water isolated, tanks. 300 ton eels, since 1984, but can be higher. Fresh water: Eel, Trout, Salmon, Sturgeon, Tilapia, Carps, Sea water: Sea bass, Sea bream, Turbot, Cod, Groupers, Snappers Cobia and Shrimps. Site: Images of plant components.
29. Sea FarmNetherlands, Adri Bout, on-land, recirculating, 100 tons turbot. Highrise system of eight high, six inches deep. Uses waste for fertilizer, gravity runs the water down the raceways, not suitable for salmon – too shallow.
30. Alma Aquaculture Research Station Ontario, closed containment, on land, up to 750,000 rainbow, tilapia, arctic char. It is the same size, on land, as fish farms in the ocean.
31. Recirculating Farms USA. An association of many farms that fosters on-land, closed, recirculating systems – to 100% - from small to commercial across the USA and around the world, for example, AquaRanch, in Illinois, tlapia and other species, Friendly Aquaponics, Hawaii. 30 years of research, scalable. See its facts and myths page: Not salmon, but who says we need to grow salmon?
32. Canadian Aquaculture Systems – Canada, Daniel Stechey
33. Netherlands – 100% of fish farms are closed containment as their laws require all fish farms to do so.
34. Pakistan, there are 7,500 fish farms spread over 43,000 acres of land of the province, producing 44,300 metric tons per 1000 acre fish annually. The government has a Rs 2 bil program to promote these on-land farms.

35. Sebago Farms, Maine USA, an on-land, closed fish farm on a 72 acre site raising arctic char and steelhead, along with tomatoes and leaf vegetables. Reuses waste, heat, produces electicity, uses high tech pumping systems. Read:

36. There is the CAAR study, too in BC. Above.

37.Building Integrated Aquaculture, USA, U of Massachusetts, Amherst. Closed, recirculating, uses waste for hydroponics. And other innovative design features, for ex, humidity control. Purpose to put fish farms in every town where locally grown fish would be purchased.

38. Jovana Farms, Nigeria, catfish. – a site with character. On-land in concrete or plywood and waterproof tarp. Local feed. Sales maturity in 6 months.

39. Shalon Fish Farms - Kahwa, Uganda, in ponds on land, tilapia, mirror-carp, catfish and tilapia-kyoga. Kahwa is selling his fish farm businesses to others.
40. Lashto Fish Farm, Caribbean Harvest, Haiti – tilapia. On land, solar powered 24/7.
41. Willoughby Aquatic Farm, Columbus, Ohio, - yellow perch, closed container on land.

42. Urban Fish Farms, New York, USA - tilapia, now individual consumers are growing their own tilapia in their apartments, rather than buying any kind of farmed fish.

43. Urban Farmers, Zurich, Tank on rooftop, concept farm at moment. 100 kg fish, 400 kg vegetables. Feeds four families of four, cucumber, squash, tomatoes, eggplant, melons, chard, carrots, peas, broccoli cabbage. Tilapia, salmon, trout.

44. Okayama, Japan, blue fin tuna, as in ka-ching. On land, recirculating system. Both salt and freshwater fish., adding sodium, potassium and other elements.

45. Niri AS – Niri Seafood Ireland Ltd – 3,300 tonnes of salmon from on-land, closed system. Reen Point. They say cheaper than Norway in-ocean product, and have grown to harvest there.

46. Namibia, Kalimbeza fish farm, tilapia, this is just one of many that the government is helping.

47. Michigan State - USA. The state has a list of 52 fish farms operating in Michigan: Species include bluegill, rainbow trout, perch, and so on.These are planting stock, dressed filet and fee fishing farms.

48. Willowfield Enterprises, Canada, BC, sockeye, steelhead, several farms, West Creek Farms, on-land, integrated use of fish waste,

49. Hickling’s Fish Farm, Inc., USA, bass for food and as stock, recirculating,

50. Efficient City Farming, perch, vegetables, Germany, a system for anyone to raise their own fish.

51. First Ascent Fish Farm – Idaho, USA, live tilapia,

 52. WA, USA, Illinois grant, Olympia School District, hydroponics and tilapia in highschool.

53. Fishfrom, Scotland, on-land, closed, recirculating, Atlantic Salmon.

54. Otieno Okello, Maseno, Kisumu County, recirculating, Africa,

55. Marine Biotechnology in Baltimore, Maryland, indoor, recirculatng, no speices identified.

56. Calcutta India, Traditional ponds outside of Calcutta, India, called bheris, produce some 13,000 tons of fish a year for the city's 12 million inhabitants, and serve as critical bird habitat. But the bigger environmental service they provide is that the fish feed on the 600 million liters of raw sewage that spews from Calcutta daily, turning a health risk into a key urban crop. Although I would not eat fish that were fattened on human sewage, there must be dozens of on-land ponds. And Brian Halwell's article has info on other in-ocean fish farms that is out of date.

57. Icy Waters, Canada, Arctic Char. On land, outside in the Whitehorse, Yukon. Brr.

58. Tilapia, MDM Aqua Farms, Rumsey, Alberta, Canada,, website unavailable, 04/19/2013

59. Halibut, Scotia Halibut (Nova Scotia),, landbased, Wood’s Harbour, Clark’s Harbour.

60. Sea Bream/Sea bass, Sustainable Blue, Nova Scotia, Sea Bream/Sea bass –, land based, recirculating. Now Sustainable Blue is raising its first group of Atlantic salmon on land in closed containment: And the NS on land fish farm harvested in Sept 2015:

61. Yellow Perch, Bell Aquaculture, Indiana, USA, Landbased.

62. Tilapia, Canada, Courtenay BC,, Redfish Ranch.

63. Nova Scotia, 11 on-land systems raising adult fish.

64. USA, Blue Ridge Aquaculture, Martinsville,VA, Tilapia,,  4 million pounds per year

65. The Business Place, Cape Town, South Africa, Alan Fleming, a system in a shipping container that raises four tons of fish per year. "profitable, affordable, repeatable, transportable, lockable and stackable". $18,500 US.

66. Denmark, half of the industry is RAS. See: Read also this about 1000 tonne harvest from farm:

67. Bill Martin's tilapia factory in Martinsville, Va, USA:

68. Efficient City Farming, barramundi, Berlin Germany:

69. Oceanthix, Hong Kong, grouper grown in high rises, on land:

70. VeroBlue Farms, Des Moines, Iowa/Webster city. barramundi, in buildings, bought up Iowa's First, 20,000 lbs per tank, 215 tanks:

71. North Korea, Kim Jong-un, catfish, on land, in closed containment. No sense of humour, but has on-land fish farms. Very sensible. See:

72. VeroBlue, Ohio, barramundi, 40 million pounds of fish. This is a new development. See: Here is a progress report on Aug 24, 2016:

73. Kenya, tilapia, catfish, trout, etc. Fish farm pond construction for fish farms all over Kenya, potentially thousands (This is in addition to the more than 8,000 actual on-land farms noted in the title above). See:

74. Norway, Atlantic salmon. Even Norway is getting on the band wagon, showing that fish should be raised in closed containment as it eliminates lice problems and could likely be extended to 4 kilo fish. See:

75. Troutdale Farm, Gravois Mills, Missouri, USA, rainbow trout. This on-land fish farm does not have a website, but it is doing it right raising rainbows in closed containers.

76. Fredrikstad Seafood, Orkla, Atlantic Salmon, in Norway no less. Even Norway is getting on the band wagon getting fish farms on land where they belong.

77. Acadia Harvest, Maine USA, 2015, California yellow tail and black sea bass. On land, recirculating. See: 
78. The Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute (TCFFI), Atlantic Salmon on-land, Norway Note that this one says that in-ocean licences are NOK 60Million, $10Million USA, far higher than I have seen before, but a great way to make fish farms move to land, as the saltwater licence fee would not be required.

79. Microdel, Nevada Sea Dream, USA,Chilean sea bass and Atlantic salmon. See:

80. GrowUp Urban Farms, London, England, tilapia and in 2015, also carp. See:

81. Peru, gamitana, boquichico, sabolo in ponds that use pigs, chickens, cows to pass their waste into the pond and it supports the insects, plankton and so on that the fish eat. I would not eat such a fish, but this system is intended for wide use in hundreds of ponds in Peru on the edges of rain forest where it helps both feed the people, as well as keeps the rain forest from being cut down. See:

82. India, tilapia, Kerala State Fisheries Department, aquapoinics for waste and vegetables, recirculating. See:
Fifty new farms.

83. Bibo Co., China, rainbow trout, 600 tonnes/year, grown in the desert. See:

84. Acadia Harvest, Maine, USA, California yellowtail. See:

85. Sustainable Aquaculture Systems. Big Key, FL, USA, multiple species. Company intends to revolutionize fish farming by moving all farms to land. Will produce on-land fish farm systems. Could result in hundreds of on-land farms. See:

86. Canada, The Canadian Model Aqua-Farm Initiative, rainbow trout, constructing state of the art commercial land-based freshwater fish farm. This is on DFO’s own site. See:

87. India, KVK, mullet, pearlspot, sea bass, grown in rice paddies, in open or caged fish, on land. Twice the profit of other methods. This has the potential to be thousands of farms. See:

88. Verticulture, USA, Brooklyn, tiliapia, for sale to restaurants in New York. See:

89. GeneSeas, Brazil, Tilapia and other species. On land, fish production system. See:

90. AquaMaof Israel - any species, tilapia, for instance. RAS. This is a turn key operation from setting up to selling anywhere in the world on land. See:

91. The Urban Farming Guys, USA, tilapia, and other species.  See: 

92. Pentair, England, and Urban Organics, Minnesota, USA, salmon, trout, char, join forces to set up an 87,000 square foot facility. See:

93. Canaqua Seafood, Canada, NS halibut, salmon, etc. These fish are raised entirely in land-based systems, which clearly offer advantages over growing fish in sea-cages. At no time, from breeding to market, are they exposed to the pathogens and parasites encountered in the wild, nor are they subject to the temperature variations that occur on open-water sites. They cannot escape and mingle (or breed) with wild fish, a point of contention for some. - See more at:

94. Red Fish Tilapia, BC, Canada:         

95. MDM Aqua Farms, AB, Canada, tilapia:

96. Taste of BC Aquafarm, Canada, Nanaimo, steelhead. See design: Intended as a farm model. 2 mega tonne harvest weekly. In concert with PR Aqua - item 27 in this list..

97. Acadia Harvest, Maine, USA, yellowtail, black bass. RAS system. See:

98Tropenhaus in Frutigen, Switzerland, sturgeon. See: 
99. Quixotic Farming, Missouri USA, tilapia. See:
100. Aquapri, Denmark, Trout, Pike Perch. See:

101. Svenskt Vattbruk, Sweden, pike, perch. Gearing up for three plants to harvest, 500 MT each. They point out that electricity use is low, and it is a myth that its cost is high.  See:

102. Nutriponics, AB Canada, tilapia. And a second farm will come on stream in NB next year. See:

103. Gigha Halibut, Scotland. See:

These are from the Powerpoint presentation above, dated, Oct 14, 2015 update. Weblinks to come:

104. Golden Eagle, Canada, sablefish, Atlantic salmon. See:

105. Bell Aquaculture, USA, Indiana. Atlantic salmon and other species. Website under construction. See: Up dating to 2017: Bell Aqua was bought by Bell Fish Company and an investment in that firm has been made by, Trive Aquaculture:

106. BDV, France, Atlantic salmon.

107. Danish Salmon, Denmark, Atlantic salmon. See:

108. Jurassic Salmon, Poland, Atlantic salmon. View the on-land operations:,+Poland,+Atlantic+salmon.&espv=2&biw=1070&bih=461&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CFAQsARqFQoTCIjCyZqsickCFQvBYwod6owDJQ.

109. Shandong Oriental OT, China, Atlantic salmon. This gives you a rundown on the company: The company also does in-ocean.

110. Yantai, China, Atlantic salmon. A subsidiary of Shandong. 16 worshops:

111. Stolt, USA, sturgeon. See: And:

112. Danish Model Farms, Denmark, trout. An economic analysis:

113. Aquatic, sturgeon, Moldavia.

114. Xinjiang, China, Gobi Desert no less, steelhead.

115. Hudson Valley, USA, NY, steelhead. See:

116. Hayashi, Japan, steelhead.

117. Spring Salmon, USA, WA, steelhead.

118. Lauka, Finland, Atlantic salmon and other speciesNational Resources Institute of Finland (Luke) opened a recirculating aquaculture (RAC) testing and learning environment at the Laukaa fish farm:, and:

119. Marine Harvest, Norway, Moines, Atlantic Salmon. Well, for Pete's sake, the first big company to see the light on where sustainable fish farming has to go: on land. See:

120. New Global Energy, US, tilapia. A big plant:

121. Marine Harvest, BC, Canada, Atlantic Salmon. Yes, I almost fell off my chair when I read MH's stuff about what it is doing in BC, to grow fish to marketable size on land. Now, don't be fooled by their spin that they have been leading the way for decades, and now the other companies can get in touch for details. After all, they are 121. on this list. See:

122. Akvafarm Rjukan AS, Norway, Atlantic salmon. Atlantis Subsea Farming. See:

123. Great American Aquaculture, USA,seabass, Connecticut. See: And:

124. Biorefining Corporaton, USA, Canton, Indiana- 20 million pounds of unspecified fish. See:

125. Monterey Bluewater Farms. USA. Yellow tail and more. Being built: 400,000 sq ft.  See:

126. Clear Springs, USA, Rainbow Trout. See:

127. Gibraltar-based Rodsel Group, Zamora, Spain, 3,000t by 2020, See:

128. UNH, USA, Steelhead Trout:

129. Global Fish, tilapia, Poland. See:

130. Sustainable Fish Farming Ltd., Atlantic salmon, Canada, NS. See:

131.Golden Harvest Aquaculture, NZ, silver carp. See:, and,

132. Matorka, Arctic Char, Iceland. Headquartered in Switzerland. Has a good section on benefits of on-land versus in-sea fish farms. See:

133. Pstrag Pustelnia, Poland, carp, trout, sturgeon in ponds:

134. Pentair, Tilapia, USA, Guyana and Etc. These guys are aggressively going after all on-land applications of fish farms. See:

135. Oceanwise, East Cape Fish Farm, UK and South Africa, Dust Kob, other species, many farms. See:

136. Aquapri, Pike perch, Denmark:

137. Bench, farmer, barramundi, Australia:

138. Marine Harvest - Poland, On Land Salmon Farm, ‘Jurassic Salmon’: Using geothermal water. Wow! Marine Harvest. Catch me as I fall off my chair.

139. Oman - Oman starts planning new land-based fish farm ( systems support more than 20 species, including Sea Bream, Cobia, Grouper, Snapper, White fish, Sole, Yellowtail Kingfish, and Catfish.

140. HESY Aquaculture, Netherlands, multiple species, RAS. 200 farms around the world:

141. Bibo Company - China, rainbow trout. Also about desertification remediation by building on-land farm:

142.  Regal Springs, Tilapia - Miramar, is among the largest single producers of farmed tilapia in the world. In 2014, the company estimates it will supply 60 percent of the fresh tilapia sold in the United States, about 36 million pounds. Regal Springs also holds about 8 percent of the market share of frozen tilapia sold in the U.S., about 40 million pounds: