Friday, 26 October 2018

Sustainable Wild Salmon Future? Well, No

Walter Schoenfelder has done an op-ed in the Times Colonist, Oct 26, 2018. Fish farms have done such a good job of creating false communication's spin, er, scratch the false, as all communications is spin, that he, a lodge owner in Quatsino Sound, can spit it out just as well as Marine Harvest et al can.

Walter says: 'I believe we need both wild and farmed salmon.'

A: After I lifted myself off the floor from a fishing guide singing the fish farm tune, I'd say, if you want to eat farmed fish, eat a vegetarian, not a carnivore that kills protein to make protein and thus is a net loss. And, no one is saying, close the farms, only that, it is time to put them on land and solve their environmental degradation like sewage.

And, on-land is now common, the spin is out of date by a decade. My list of on-land farms is now at 250: Walter and in-ocean fish farm companies don't seem to know the world has moved on. Take a look at Atlantic Sapphire (No. 176), Nordic Aquafarms and Whole Ocean, the new, mega farms being built in the USA. They will come in at almost triple the size of the entire BC industry, and if it isn't on land, it may just go belly up, throwing workers out of jobs.

Walter: The issue should be 'More survival for wild fish, and more healthy food for the world.' And, 'a modern industry is creating more wild-salmon stocks.'

A: The science shows that fish farms kill more than 50% of wild fish around the world where they operate, and this includes in BC:

And there is even more fish death. The Sea Around Us, in exhaustive research, determined that of the top 20 ocean forage fish, 19 are either collapsing, poorly managed or both, because they are caught to feed to farmed salmon: I calculate that the BC industry kills 5.76B of these wild fish to bring in one crop:

And healthy food for the world? The answer is no because farmed fish is far too expensive for most people on the planet. And there is that Hites article on the cancer-causing chemicals in farmed salmon, and Prof. Miller showed how fish farms, governments and related websites colluded to destroy the article's credibility, even though the science was true. This post has that link and a long list of links on the chemicals in farmed fish: So, no, not healthy food.

Walter: 'fish farms provide surrounding areas with nutrients from the farmed fish's waste... Far from creating some kind of dead zone, fish farms help create a healthy marine environment.'

A: You should work for Marine Harvest et al. You can create spin better than they can. Fish farm sewage is, in my opinion, the worst problem of fish farms. I spent several weeks figuring out that the conservative estimate of fish farm sewage in BC is $10.4B that we taxpayers pay for. We don't want to pay. The other end of conservative is triple this amount, at $31.2B. I was shocked to calculate these figures. This post has useful links:

In fact, global aquaculture, ocean trawling and human sewage have killed the vast Bengal Bay, and have scientists already worried about a global crisis in our oceans. Fish farms cause vast areas of ocean eutrophication and should not be allowed. Read about Bengal Bay:

And Grieg Seafood just had an algal bloom problem in BC, in 2018, causing a quarter of a million dead salmon: Hmm.

Walter: fish farms 'can't afford to have fish that aren't healthy, and that healthy fish pose no disease danger to wild salmon.'

 A: Go back up and read that article finding more than 50% of wild salmonids die when there are fish farms around.

And, Dr. Fred Kibenge, a world expert on fish diseases, says that one third to one half of all fish farm products are lost to disease, globally, so a huge amount:

Here is a short list of fish farm disease losses:

And in 2018, the CFIA notes a dozen ISA diagnoses at farms in Atlantic Canada:, and the year is not yet over. Oh and there are several dozen diseases.

I could go on but won't, other than to say that in BC Marine Harvest has been hampered with furunculosis many times, IHN for Cermaq and Grieg Seafood, and Cermaq just bought 2.2 million litres of lice chemicals, for release in Clayoquot Sound, a UN Biosphere designated water no less, and still had to close some farms because of lice being out of control.

The point is that fish farming is hugely risky; that is why, small producers, even in BC, go belly up and the big multi-nationals buy them up for peanuts because they have the resources to survive bankruptcies at individual sites.

Walter: These are hard times for wild salmon. 'Changing ocean conditions, commercial fishing and the destruction of habitat are part of' the picture.

A: Huh, we share some agreement. I'd say the big four problems for wild salmon are: freshwater habitat restoration, DFO, fish farms and climate change. We can do something for the first three. Here is why we don't trust DFO:

So, it is time to move on to have the BC Wild Salmon Secretariat get into putting money into freshwater habitat restoration by giving money to the Pacific Salmon Foundation that leverages such money 4 to 7 times:

Walter: The biggest benefit for wild salmon is that 'the fish produced take the pressure off remaining wild stocks.'

A: I have answered this above pointing out that farmed fish kill wild salmonids and kill huge numbers of wild forage fish to feed them. I am saddened that fish farm communications spin has been adopted by an angler who should know better, and look into the facts.

Walter: fish farms help us with out salmon netpens, and 'all the salmon we serve guests is farmed Atlantic.'

A: I have fallen off my chair, but am happy they are doing something with a social conscience. Too bad it doesn't include moving to on land farms and solving virtually all the problems. They could still help you out rather than spew their externalities on public ocean.

It sounds odd hearing fish farm spin, some dating from 50 years ago in Norway, come from a lodge owner's mouth, but Marine Harvest has been helping him. See:

I note from this article algal bloom problems in Quatsino. When I motored by the fish farms, I was concerned with just such an issue in a long, narrow, poorly flushing inlet.

Now that I have gotten off the floor: this post gives you more than fifty references for the problems with fish farms:

The point is: don't believe the spin, do some research and find the real answers. In a nutshell it will tell you: put fish farms on land, and raise vegetarians. 

Friday, 19 October 2018

Tasmanian Fish Farms Just as Bad as the Rest of the World's Fish Farms

Just in from Environment Tasmania that stands up for the environment in one of the most southerly countries in the world, their take on the many problems with fish farms in Tasmania.

They will sound familiar: major non-compliance, fire crackers/bean bags harassing seals, farmed fish rated red, or don't buy, flawed accreditation schemes. Note their website at the bottom. Read on: 


What an extraordinary week where multiple spotlights have been shone in to the Tasmanian Salmon Industry.

The release of an ASC audit (industry funded audit process) of Petuna seafood’s leases in Macquarie Harbour which found major non compliance and Petuna withdrawing from the certification process altogether.

Then we have the revelation that Tassal staff fire loud crackers and lead pellet loaded “bean bags” at seals.  Just this year up to July 1, 1,250 beanbags and 8,856 crackers had been used. Not only are the seals very vulnerable to damage but we have yet another example of fish farms polluting waters.

Next we had the highly respected sustainable fish eating guide produced by the Australian Marine Conservation Society recommend a just say no to Tasmanian Salmon. A red rating based on a rigorous review of all the available data.

Lastly, an international audit of the accreditation body for much of the world’s salmon industry including Tasmanian producers found the accreditation flawed in many cases. The review found Australian Salmon farms frequently breach Australian Stewardship Council standards but still have the right to badge their products with the ASC stamp of approval.

We are working very hard to protect our marine environment and we will bring about change. 

Philip Cocker


Monday, 15 October 2018

Precautionary Principle has a Defined Approach

Here is a thorough look at the precautionary principle, as applied to getting fish farms out of the water on the grounds they are detrimental to wild salmon. The reason for using the principle is that it doesn't matter how much science is done, fish farms will always say that the science done doesn't prove anything and that more science is required.

Doing science is thus a trap, because a decade will go by and still fish farms, and DFO, will say there is not enough science. Hence the reason for using the precautionary principle to save wild salmon. one example is that fish farms don't agree that lice cause problems even though there have been 30 such studies in BC, and 800 world wide, and that lice cause the greatest loss of farmed fish around the world. And Helge Aarskog, CEO of Marine Harvest says lice are their biggest problem, even though Marine Harvest in BC doesn't agree.

For links to the lice studies, see this post of mine:

There is a good coverage of the issue of precautionary principle in the Agriculture Minister's Advisory Council's Appendix 2 in the report:

Written by Tony Allard - who is a lawyer

He says: "There are constitutional, legislative, policy and international obligations that require the Minister to apply the precautionary principle.The precautionary principle does more than forbid decision makers from using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for regulatory inaction. It requires decision makers to err on the side of caution by anticipating harm and taking protective measures when there is environmental risk, even if there is scientific uncertainty."
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect fisheries and oceans. Section 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal government jurisdiction over the “Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries”.


"The history of the Oceans Act is important to understanding its legislative intent. By the early 1990s, the cod fishery on Canada’s Atlantic coast had collapsed. The Oceans Act was passed in 1996 to ensure that such a catastrophe never occurred again in Canada. The Oceans Act ext ended Canada’s jurisdiction over marine waters and required an ecosystem approach to the management of the marine environment based on the precautionary principle.

"Sections 29 and 30 of the Oceans Act expressly require the Minister to apply the precautionary principle.

"Moreover, in the Prime Minister’s Mandate Letter to the Minister, the Prime Minister expressly requires the Minister to “[u]se scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, and take into account climate change, when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystem management”.

"In The Uncertain Future of the Fraser River Sockeye(the “Cohen Commission”), Mr. Justice Cohen came to similar conclusion. Mr. Justice Cohen observed that the Federal Court in Environmental Defence Canada v . Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2009 FC 878 said that Canada had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity (the Convention) and, since the precautionary principle was a main component of that convention, Canada had committed to apply the precautionary principle.

"Canada has also committed to the precautionary principle in several pieces of federal legislation,including the Oceans Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, SC 1999, c 33, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52."

Allard goes on to cite several cases and policy documents that show DFO is to use the precautionary principle.  For example Justice Rennie in Morton, 2016 spells out what is required:

"...although there is a healthy debate between respected scientists on the issue, the evidence, suggests that the disease agent (PRV) may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish, and therefore a “lack of full scientific certainty should not be used a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”: Spraytechat para 31"


"Mr. Justice Rennie’s interpretation al so sits squarely with the classic statement of the precautionary principle by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Spray Tech decision, but it shifts the emphasis away from scientific uncertainty, where the discussion is often focused, and places it back on anticipation and prevention of environmental harm:

In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Allard points out that: "Canada’s Policy for the Conservation of Wild Salmon expressly requires the precautionary principle to be applied with respect to the conservation of wild salmon"

This means it applies to the Wild Salmon Policy.


"The precautionary approach, defined in the Oceans Act as “erring on the side of caution,is a key principle to be applied in the management of ocean activities. Under the Strategy, the Government of Canada is reaffirming its commitment to promoting the wide application of the precautionary  approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine resources in order to protect these resources and preserve the marine environment. 142

And, science is needed as a place to start, but not a place to say no: "Before the precautionary approach can be applied, scientific data relevant to the risk must be evaluated through a sound, credible, transparent and inclusive mechanism leading to a conclusion that expresses the possibility of occurrence of harm and the magnitude of that harm (including the extent of possible damage, persistency, reversibility and delayed effect).143"

 And the framework that government must use includes the following: "The application of precaution is distinctive within science-based risk management and is characterized by three basic tenets: the need for a decision, a risk of serious or irreversible harm and a lack of full scientific certainty.145"

Now, fish farms will always say that they have millions invested and the government can't just dump them on land, where is the science? I have pointed out several times that the sewage cost to BC is at minimum, $10.4B and this is vastly higher than the revenue, as measured by BC Stats of $469M. It would pay us well to give them $1m each to set up on land, as that total would be $85 million, given that roughly 85 farms are operating at any time.

"Since the Framework provides a series principles a decision-maker must follow to protect the environment, it is not surprising that the Framework makes it expressly clear that any impact on the assessment of trade occurs only after the decision- maker has determined the level of protection is consistent with society’s values. Accordingly, the Framework’s last principle makes it clear that the impact on trade is to be considered only after the decision to apply precautionary measures has been made"

 The precautionary approach, is summarized this way, rather than the oppposite of fish farms saying the country will never attract investment, that you have to show us 100% proof that w e cause damage, and jobs will be lost, etc.:

"First, a level of protection is chosen so that it is aligned with society’s values. Second, optionsfor protective measures that meet that level of protection are identified. Third, and only after the first two steps, the impacts on trade are assessed and protective measures that may have a lesser effect on trade may only be chosen if they maintain an equal level of protection.151 The decision-maker cannot decrease the level of protection to increase trade. Rather, once society’s chosen level of protection has been determined, the decision-maker can only choose between protective measures that maintain that level of protection. If multiple options for precautionary measures are available that provide the same level of protection, only then can the decision- maker choose the least trade-restrictive option."

 For example, DFO should refuse to let PRV infected smolts be put in the ocean, acting on the precautionary principle, not ironclad science, because fish farms say there is no ironclad science.

In closing, Allard puts it this way: "The precautionary principle does more than forbid decision makers from using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for regulatory inaction. It requires decision makers to err on the side of caution by anticipating harm and taking protective measures when there is environmental risk even if there is scientific uncertainty."

And that the minister must do what is reasonable, not what he thinks is reasonable, but what the situation requires as the most reasonable outcome, such as putting fish farms on land. You may know that my list of on-land fish farm systems now sits at 251 such RAS systems:

Friday, 12 October 2018

ISA in Canada

Here are the ISA cases reported in Canada by the CFIA for so far in 2018. As you can see it is a pretty full list.

There are two questions:

1. Do we trust the CFIA? I am not sure, as they were the agency that conspired with DFO to find a disease testing system that would produce a negative response for disease in BC. Here is a link to that post, and brilliant work by Alex Morton: I asked the Attorney General to investigate this case of fraud. Her staff said she could not, so I asked who do I contact to start an investigation? I will let you know what the AG has to say.

Are we supposed to trust the CFIA when its lab was criticized in the Cohen Commission process and that they colluded with DFO?

2. What is to be made of the cases where the CFIA says that a particular strain is not known to cause ISA disease? Well, the issues are that each strain can become infectious and then wipe out farmed fish, taking wild fish with them. And, the CFIA is not identifying where the strain is from. Typically it is from Europe, meaning eggs imported with disease. But they don't go into this.

Note the obvious: there are many cases of ISA that could become full blown epidemics in the list below.

Locations infected with Infectious Salmon Anaemia
Date confirmed Location Animal type infected Scientific Name
September 11 Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
August 30 Table Note * New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
August 28 New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
August 24 Table Note * Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
July 27 Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
July 24 New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
June 20 Table Note * New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
June 20 Table Note * New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
May 3 New Brunswick Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
May 2 Table Note * Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
March 26 Nova Scotia Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
March 13 Nova Scotia Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
March 9 Table Note * Nova Scotia Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
February 13 Newfoundland Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
Table Notes
Table Note *
This virus strain is not known to cause disease.

Sunday, 7 October 2018

Let’s Take a Global Look at the SRKW Problem

Update Nov 10, 2018. The Pacific Salmon Foundation has done an hour long video on the killer whale/chinook/noise/fishing issues that is worth viewing. See:

Here is a summary: Overall the speakers say that the scientific facts do not support the public discussion and newspaper/press articles. Sport fishing is dealt with at minute 19, and says that time and area closures are the answer, not a blanket closure. The inside water catch rate is far lower than it used to be in terms of % of runs taken. The two Fraser stocks of most influence are the Harrison and Thompson rivers and their numbers have declined. It is a big problem that chinook are coming back smaller than they used to be. Moving to the SRKW program by the feds, at minute 30, of $61M, only $3M is allocated to research, and it is a competition so only a few programs get funding when much more money should be spent on science. The SRKW are here only 2.5 months per year, and roam from southern California. Apparently, noise is not really a problem. Putting more ferry runs on weekends/holidays increases noise more than tankers. New ocean-going vessels are far better at being silent than older boats. AS for killer whale numbers, which is dealt with right at the beginning, the stats show that the population has increased and decreased four times since 1960, one trough was only 66 animals, with the highest peak only 98 animals. That being the case, what is the legitimate number of animals that the species needs?

Now, the original post on this issue:

You will recall that I did an article on the SRKW problem. I pointed out that the problem has resulted from DFO, in Ottawa, managing killer whales and wild Pacific salmon into extinction for forty years. Look at the photo in that article to see one chinook catch from the 1960s when there were healthy chinook populations in many rivers: This post has been viewed more than 10,000 times.

I made the point that you can’t save extinction levels of SRKW with extinction levels of Fraser chinook, chiefly those 4-2s and 5-2s. The answer is a dozen netpens, each of 2 million sterilized chinook, around the south coast every year for at least a decade, and money put into freshwater habitat restoration/epigenetic enhancement.

What is DFO doing? Well, it is not doing what is required to give the SRKW a better chance – putting more salmon in the water – and it is not doing much habitat restoration. It is tamping down on sport fishing and trying to feed extinction level SRKW without putting more chinook in the ocean, and the most likely result is that both salmon and SRKW will move to extinction.

You see, DFO, ignoring any other approach, is now requesting sport fishers, guides and so on to offer up more areas of critical habitat for the SRKW to feed. It has increased the current zones it has established by adding Swiftsure Bank and La Perouse Bank and giving us only the option of responding to that suggestion, by Nov 3, 2018. 

The Sport Fishing Institute has done a good post on where we are today, with a new site dedicated to the issue: Go look at it as, just as my article did, it cuts to the chase and is a good summary, with the stats. Note that it includes a cull to seals/sea lions, as my article did, and for the same reason: they eat almost half of all coho and chinook smolts in the ocean, particularly Georgia Strait, and their numbers have more than doubled over the years.

Here is the DFO page to see what they have to say:

On the issue of critical habitat, let me give you the SFI’s paragraph:

“A technical workshop held in Vancouver last year was well attended by both whale and salmon biologists and managers from OR, WA, AK and BC. The SFI's Martin Paish attended as a representative of the SFAB, SFI and the sport fishing community. The consensus reached at that workshop was that large-scale closures implemented to increase the overall abundance of chinook would NOT be an effective strategy to provide more prey to SRKW’s. Again, DFO needs to listen to its experts and not to strategically manipulated public opinion. Find details and findings of the workshop here and on the SFI website:

The SFI says this is where we are now, and asks you to send a note to DFO, as above: 

“Our “consultation” experience for SRKW’s in 2018 created great mistrust between DFO and the fishing community. The DFO Minister of the day chose to bow to political pressure in the form of a threatened lawsuit rather than listen to the advice offered by his own Pacific Region staff and the carefully and thoughtfully gathered community recommendations that incorporated the best available science of the day. This was both demoralizing to staff, insulting to those who took the time to participate in consultation, and downright irresponsible in its purely political rather than scientific justification. The result was a ridiculous farce that permits industrial scale commercial fisheries for the same species in the same areas while low impact recreational fisheries are prohibited. We know that regional staff and the local fishing community are both insulted and demoralized by the outcome, and we are fearful that a similar approach may be taken this time.”

Now, let me take this in another direction: there are more issues out there with DFO that need to be mentioned. I read all sorts of DFO material and have noticed that the many areas don’t have much connection with one another.

On the one hand, we have the Sport Fish Advisory Board, The Pacific Salmon Commission and The Pacific Halibut Commission concerned with: what poundage of fish is out there and how do we divide them among stakeholders.

In addition, loads of money is spent on putting out two fishing management plans, one for northern BC and one for southern BC. These are known as the Integrated Fisheries Management Plans. At 500 pages each, they represent huge expenditure, but only have tangential connection with the various fisheries. I say this, knowing some of the arguments between the SFAB and DFO on stock abundance, and number of fish/species retained. We seldom talk about the IFMPs. Why waste this huge amount of money? Let’s put it into freshwater habitat restoration and epigenetic enhancement.

To take this in another direction, one would think that DFO would have province wide stocks and numbers of all species. But I didn’t find this when looking for it. I found that there are a half dozen documents that looked at parts of the province, but that DFO had not brought them together to have a big picture number of salmon and species and areas of the province. 

So, I spent more than a full week with the various documents, sorted out double-counting, made do with data with holes in it, with methodological problems, with floods in one year requiring helicopter counts, but next year it was on foot, and so on. Trying to come out with a fair estimate, I made assumptions here and there, plugged the holes and felt that before all fisheries that BC has 73 million salmon in the ocean in an average year. Escapement would be about half, or 38 million. Here is a post that gives you the DFO documents I used. See item B toward the bottom: You will note that BC salmon are 99.8% of all salmon in Canada. So where is the cash for their problems?

Let me take this another direction: DFO’s take on Fraser River sockeye subcomponents is filled with wizardry, with gill net and seine net in ocean, in river, and real time DNA testing. The panel reports twice each week for close to five months of the year. A huge amount of money is spent to do this, while wild salmon are declining toward extinction levels in many areas of the province. Why isn’t this money used to put real fish in the water, rather than document their decline?

Let me take this in another direction: the SFI points out that eliminating sport fisheries that take less than commercial fisheries, and are second in line with aboriginal fisheries, will have a large negative effect on towns and businesses on the coast, without positive SRKW result. For the Pacific Salmon Foundation, I put together the take from sport in BC. Including freshwater fisheries, the sport contribution to our economy is $2.52 billion. Here is how I calculated the figure:  

The PSF did a study on Georgia Strait and found that the increased revenue from sport for coho and chinook, once brought back, is $200- $400-million in addition to the figure I calculated, or, being conservative, a total of $2.72 B. (Note that the Freshwater Fisheries Society did its own study of freshwater sport take of $937 million. I added this amount to the over all figure I calculated, so if your interest is simply saltwater sport fishing revenue, take their figure out of my $2.52B).

Whichever way you slice it, eliminating the sport fishery will have a real impact on those 13,000 jobs in the industry, from the BC Stats Report on the fishing sectors, 2012, See the bottom of this post for the BC Stats table:

Let me take this yet another direction. The laws to do with salmon and fish in Canada/BC have been weakened in many ways over many years. They need to be brought back. See: Laws and Policies to do with Pacific Salmon:

And yet another direction: once you have decent laws, then they need to be enforced. Randy Nelson’s book Poachers, Polluters and Politics points out the moribund nature of Conservation and Protection under DFO. He was director of the branch for years, and it was underfunded and understaffed. So, enforcement needs to be dramatically improved, too. See: Read this book for some of the really difficult cases he was on, and DFO’s lack of enforcement presence.

And for another direction: did you know that the BC enhancement budget is put into C&P, where it shouldn’t be? That means that it has been used as a bargaining chip when C&P budgets are haggled over every year before budget time, in Ottawa, and has resulted in BC enhancement budgets being far too low. DFO this is fake news, er, an illegitimate place to put BC enhancement in the over all scheme of DFO budgets. My recollection is that DFO’s budget is about $1.5 billion, and the max $25 million in enhancement is 1.7% of that budget. Surely, we can do better for bringing back 99.8% of all the salmon in Canada.

And yet another direction: The SFI alludes to the environmental organizations gathering up and demanding the end of sport fishing to save the SRKW, along with launching a lawsuit. I sent a long note on the issue of laws to the ED of the Georgia Strait Alliance:

I said that the GSA should start a netpen for chinook. The ED sent back that they didn’t know how to do a netpen. As this is not rocket science, I just shook my head, and also realized that the environmental organizations had little experience with the huge decline in wild salmon over the years and DFO’s intransigence on bringing them back. If they did, they would realize that stopping all sport fishing will not save the SRKW. The answer is putting more fish in the sea and eating seal flippers for dinner a few times. And looking at one another as allies, not enemies.

And in yet another direction: you will recall I pointed out that DFO specifically intended to ruin the research of Dr. John Volpe on the spread of Atlantic salmon into Vancouver Island rivers. After agreeing to give him some Atlantic fry, DFO pulled out of his study two days before he was to start. That’s because DFO is behind farmed salmon more than it is behind wild Pacific salmon. While this is disappointing, you should know that Volpe went on to do his research, while DFO refused to publish an Atlantic coast paper on Atlantic penetration of wild Atlantic stocks and an insider had to leak the paper out. 

The bottom line on Volpe’s work is that of the 40 rivers he swam in search of Atlantic fry and adults, he found them in 97% of the rivers he looked at, nothing short of shocking. Here is one link to get you into that subject:  

DFO still maintains, er, fibs that Atlantics can’t exist outside of netpens, feed, go up rivers, spawn, have viable progeny and so on. Hmm.

I could go on, but I think I have made the point that there are a whole lot of other big issues that are not being considered at the same time as DFO is only looking for input on two areas of habitat it wants to hive off from the sport fishery, Swiftsure and La Perouse. 

How does one deal with this? I think the solution is to back MLA, Adam Olsen’s Wild Salmon Secretariat of the BC government, and foster habitat restoration by funding the Pacific Salmon Foundation that leverages money 4 to 7 times. And school kids and sport fishers do most of the work, something the ENGOs don’t seem to get. If the sport fishery is curtailed, no one is going to get out and help with freshwater habitat restoration and netpens. And most sport anglers will sell their boats, which in an average year cost about $10,000 to maintain, moored in saltwater. With up to 300,000 licenced anglers each year, that adds up to big dollars pretty darn quickly.

Let me end with something in last week’s article. The comments Jim Gilbert made decades ago about DFO. The rest is at:

“Jim has long been a critic of the top brass in the federal fisheries department. He feels DFO has no flexibility on internal creative thinking to respond to a crisis. Jim has a lot of respect for the many hard-working biologists but says lack of leadership is the problem. Nobody is putting all the knowledge together to come up with a long-range viable plan. Most of the money is spent on a bureaucracy in Ottawa and little filters down to the people in the field who do the most important work.”



Update, Oct 15, 2018: DFO Can't Track Salmon - letter to Carmel Lowe from BC DFO staff, not enough $$ to track salmon:

Monday, 1 October 2018

Most Popular Posts - September 2018

There have been some very big numbers of pageviews for some of the most popular posts of September 2018.

March 2018.

2. DFO, Salmon and Killer Whales: More than 10,000 page views. May 20 2018

3. CFIA Deception in Atlantic Canada, Just like in Pacific Canada: August 2018.

4. UBCM Stacks Deck Against Fish Farms [?], Well No, Times Colonist, September 2018: All they did was say we the cities of BC want fish farms on land.

5. BAD NEWS BITES:, May 2017.

6. Toxic Sea Lice - Norway is a Disaster Zone: Also one of the biggest posts of 2018. Lice chemicals kill lots of other species than lice on salmon. September 2018.

7. 249 On Land Fish Farms Around The World: This is the perennial, all time favourite post on this site. Yes, I have found 249 on-land fish farms, even though fish farms say it can't happen.

8. Wild Salmon Plan - Contact Your MLA: February 2018. Lots of references in this one.