Wednesday, 20 February 2019

What Happens When Fish Farms Kill All The Fish??? Updated Mar 2, 2019

We are now at a point that I thought was only a matter of time to get to: once fish farms have killed off all the fish in the ocean, what do we do then? The ramifications are very broad - and we are now there. This is bad.

You will remember that The Sea Around Us group at UBC did the most fundamental, 60 year, global study on ocean forage fish killed to feed farmed fish:

What they found was that: '19 of 20 global forage fish stocks are either collapsing, poorly managed or both.'

The Sea Around Us singled out Norway for having destroyed the Jack Mackerel off Chile. Now, the industry is destroying the anchovetta off Peru.

And remember that those 19 fed the entire ocean food web, as well as Asia where they don't do reduction fisheries (or didn't, as they are now mopping up the anchovetta off Peru) for non-human consumption. Mostly humans eat them, the only real use for killing fish needed by the ocean food networks.

But fish farms have depleted those 19 stocks in less than 50 years to provide farmed salmon for first world mouths. That is reprehensible, and the 20th stock, Antarctica krill, isn't even a fish, and they are being ripped from the sea right now.

So, we are now at the penultimate moment in the non-sustainability of the fish farm industry's fish feed industry. At this point, past the tipping point, the California conference on seafood had some working sessions of industry people.

The fish farm/seafood industry's take on the problems they caused reads like Armageddon of the Sea. From Intrafish:

Here is what industry management has to say about killing off all the fish:

War: Countries facing food security issues as a result of the disappearance of forage fish sources would seek to protect the resources they have. Other countries presumably could battle for access to other nation’s resources. [Yes, global warfare is one possible outcome. Do remember we are talking about farmed fish feed that fish farms have killed off all those global stocks - that should have been for people, if they were caught at all.]

Increase in use of agricultural raw materials: Efforts could focus on ways to use trimming and other resources from agriculture animals. [Trimming is communications speak for fish guts, offal, brains, fish skins, scales, chicken feathers, yes, chicken feathers, and so on, maybe cow guts, brains, chicken guts, lambs wool... ]

Ecosystem imbalance or collapse: Without feeder fish in the marine ecosystem, a massive collapse of the environment could result, affecting all fish. [Yes, the fish farms are saying they have caused a 'massive collapse'. This collapse will have been caused by the Norwegian-style fish farm industry, having killed off all those stocks in less than 50 years.]

Genetics: The loss of forage fish could lead to a massive investment in genetics to solve the problem.[Sure, get back to me when you have invested trillions to 'solve genetics' rather than raising vegetarians.]

Farming forage fish: Can we figure out a way to farm forage fish, many of the groups asked. [So after you killed them all off to feed farmed fish, you want to farm all the forage fish you killed off? I don't think so.]

Prices: Increase in seafood prices for both farmed and wild fish. [Duhh, and what about all those billions of third world humans who don't have food anymore and can't afford farmed fish?]

Regulations: New regulations affecting capture fisheries and aquaculture could evolve. [After fish farms killed off all the fish. Disgraceful.]

Should we eat fish at all: There could be a change in the perspective of all fish as a food source. [Really, I'd say that on-land fish farming of vegetarians and Alaska ocean-ranching of wild salmon may be the outcome, even though Alaska has chosen to push out billions of pink and sockeye fry and accept the pollution to wild salmon genetics. Or do we not want any kind of salmon anymore?]

This is where we are today: less 50 years after the Norwegians had their 'Blue Revolution' the whole experiment ends up on the rubbish tip as the English say.

It didn't have to come to this. Herbivores, like tilapia, have always been the answer to this rapacious industry. And there are chickens, cows, sheep... .


And the news today? That fish farms are being investigated for price fixing and cartel formation. These Norwegian companies operate in Canada, in BC. Why are they here? Go to my current BAD NEWS BITES post for the items around number 200: 

They left Norway looking for lower legal standards. And ended up in Chile, Scotland, England, Shetlands, Ireland, west coast Canana, east coast Canada, WA, USA where they are being closed. Disgraceful. Disgraceful.

Thursday, 14 February 2019

BC Says NO to In-ocean Fish Farms - Can You Hear Us In Ottawa?? - Updated March 24, 2019

Hi Jonathan Wilkinson (

You liberals need to wake up.

BC residents value wild salmon as highly as Quebec does French. How come, as a BC resident, you don’t know this?

I have a new post on the avalanche of global news on on-land fish farm development around the world – almost 100 entries so far: In-ocean is old tech, and the US market is going to be taken over by its upcoming on-land farms: Atlantic Sapphire, Nordic Aquafarms, Whole Oceans and Aquabanc - 218,000mt more than double the BC industry. Then there is the PE group aiming for 260,000mt around the world, starting in China, Italy, France and the USA. And my list has all these and far more, now 271 on land fish farms systems around the world:

Yet, you are so clued out, based in Ottawa, that you have forgotten how much BC hates in-ocean fish farms: There is no such thing as closed containment in the ocean, and off shore just causes massive eutrophication of the entire world’s oceans, farms tripling in size. My calculation is that the BC industry has cost us taxpayers $10.4 Billion already in sewage cost. Wake up.

Put a fish farm in the Rideau Canal in Ottawa and see how long it is until you hate it. Wake up.

Remember that you bought the KM pipeline with our billions of dollars, something you will get badly dinged for in the upcoming election. No wonder Justin is holding off on this one until afterwards.

You also fired Jody Wilson-Reybould, which is just as bad. Now Justin is wearing the issue having stated she had an obligation to tell him. Talk about trying to turn the situation on its head.

You need a good news story: Wilkinson Backs On-land Fish Farms in BC, why you can even write it based on the 60 posts in the first link above. You may even save your bacon, er, fillet.

And you blew the announcement with Horgan of $143M for wild salmon, saying, vaguely, that you support science, for continuing fish farms, but no specific amount of $$ for wild salmon habitat restoration. Why not?

DC Reid


Take a look at Alex Morton summing up the court decision against DFO in the PRV situation, even though Jon says PRV ain't a problem:

Thursday, 7 February 2019

Fish Farms Spread Viruses Around the World - Kibenge, Di Cicco, Miller

Fish farms don't seem to think there are any diseases that they have had a hand in infecting the world's oceans with. They look at disease as something bad that nature does to them, and the viruses have no relation to them and their spread around the world.

That, of course, is the communication's spin they have been using for 50 years. And, of course, the obvious rejoinder is that if you are complaining about nature doing something to you, you have the situation backwards. You need to make a change, not argue against nature. And the obvious solution - wait for it, you'll never guess - is: put fish farms on land.

Now, Kibenge, at PEI, who used to be the OIE's accredited lab for aquaculture diseases has come up with a review paper that brings together the viruses that the industry, typified by Mowi (Marine Harvest), Cermaq and Grieg, along with some others like Aquagen who took ISA to Chile, and the rest, like PRV to BC, has spread. There are a whole lot of new ones.

Kibenge is the poor chap who the DFO and CFIA went after and lobbied the OIE to take away his accreditation for being only one of two labs in the entire world to assess diseases in fish farms. Note that I have made numerous posts in the past month where I challenge DFO's claim that it follows 'evidence and science' in decision making. Well, this is another: going after Kibenge DFO wanted to control the narrative after it didn't like his Cohen Commission testimony. Science was completely disregarded.

Kibenge did a cut to the chase PowerPoint presentation some years ago that pointed out that one third to one half of the world's aqua crops [as in fish farms] are lost to disease. Here is a post I did on that which gives you a link to his document: It also has a list of more than 30 disease events around the world in fish farms.

This is a link to the post I discuss his presentation: See under the table for link.

And this is the link directly to his PowerPoint presentation:

Now, Kibenge has a new paper out on the global fish farm diseases: Do go and read it.

Here are the Highlights and abstract:


There is a continuous emergence of viral diseases in aquaculture.
Emergence of viral diseases in aquaculture may be driven by virus, animal host, environmental and/or anthropogenic factors.
Examples of emerging viruses in aquaculture include rhabdoviruses, orthomyxoviruses, reoviruses, iridoviruses, nodavirus, and herpesvirus.
Emergence of viral diseases in aquaculture can be curtailed at the farm level where prevention and control translate into sustainability.
Aquaculture remains the world’s fastest-growing sector producing food of animal origin. Unlike in terrestrial animal agriculture, in aquaculture both farmed and wild aquatic animals in the same water column experience the same virus challenges. Additionally, the burgeoning international aquaculture expansion and expanding global trade in live aquatic animals and their products have been accompanied by long distance geographical redistribution of aquatic animal species and their viruses. The outcome is a continuous emergence of viral diseases in aquaculture, which may be driven by virus factors, animal host factors, environmental factors, and/or anthropogenic factors. Examples of emerging viruses in aquaculture include viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus, infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus, infectious salmon anaemia virus, piscine orthoreovirus, Tilapia lake virus, Covert mortality nodavirus, Shrimp hemocyte iridescent virus, and Abalone herpesvirus.

There you have it. Now do go and read it. Kibenge continues to be the global good guy on the disease front. We have a lot to be thankful to him for. On all of our behalves: Thank You Dr. Fred Kibenge!


Here is the Di Cicco et al paper on PRV in BC farmed/wild fish:

Here is the Miller et al paper on viral diseases in wild salmon:

Monday, 4 February 2019

Evidence and Science Based Decisions? At DFO? Well, NO - Updated May 15, 2019

Hi Jonathan Wilkinson

Here is a post I did on how Atlantic Canada governments deliberately refused to answer the important parts of a freedom of information request on ISA, the worst fish farm disease:

Your DFO people are fond of saying that you make all your decisions on ‘evidence and science.’ The problem is that you don’t do this. I list several cases at the bottom of the post where DFO deliberately evaded science to come up with the conclusion that it wanted.

There are many more examples. Right now, you and DFO are appealing the court ruling that PRV farmed fish should not be put in the BC ocean. This is against the science. Your own Dr. Kristi Miller showed that PRV causes HSMI in Canada and also jaundice/anemia in wild chinook salmon.

DFO is not using this evidence and science to make the decision to put fish farms on land.

The case I mention in the above post of DFO/CFIA finding a lab that would give a negative response to disease in BC, is not scientific, in fact, it is best described as fraud.

Citizens will not stop complaining about your ruining our oceans with fish farms, until those farms are on land. Why don’t you just give this up now, and move them to land? You will recall that Marine Harvest and Cermaq are moving 10 farms out of the Broughton Archipelago in the next two years.

The problem in this one is: DFO refuses to let the Indigenous peoples - Musgamagw Dzawada'enuxw - use its lab to process samples of farmed fish. That isn’t science either, and there won’t be any evidence unless you allow the science.

Let me repeat the other argument: asking for science is: naive, hubris or a manipulation.  You are the naive. DFO has the hubris. Fish farms manipulate the situation with science, er, fake science.

DC Reid

Jonathan Wilkinson: Jonathan Wilkinson (
Lana Popham: Lana Popham, Minister (
Adam Olsen: Olsen.MLA, Adam <>
Andrew Weaver: Andrew Weaver (

And, updating to Feb 5, 2019, DFO loses case on PRV: PRV - DFO Minister loses case, must test farmed fish for PRV. Thank you Alex Morton and Ecojustice:


And, refusing to use the science to save Interior BC steelhead. See my BAD NEWS POST:  254. No Science for Steelhead - DFO whitewashes research, no evidence and science based decision:

And skewing science, as in not evidence and science based, to spare a hydro plant:

And, Fake Science - the Riddell Response:

And another case, from my BAD NEWS BITES post: 368. DFO Not Managing Fish Farms - Quote: "A spring 2018 report on Canadian aquaculture, in both B.C. and Atlantic Canada, by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development stated, “We concluded that Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not adequately manage the risks associated with salmon aquaculture consistent with its mandate to protect wild fish. Although the Department had some measures to control the spread of infectious diseases and parasites to wild fish in British Columbia, it had not made sufficient progress in completing the risk assessments for key diseases that were required to understand the effects of salmon aquaculture on wild fish. It also had not defined how it would manage aquaculture in a precautionary manner in the face of scientific uncertainty. Moreover, the Department did not adequately enforce compliance with aquaculture regulations to protect wild fish.”" This is the link to the 2018 report:

And, a new report on fish farm diseases including ISA and HSMI, with DFO scientists from BC, though DFO doesn't seem to know about this science on emerging diseases: You can download a PDF of the report on this site.

And another article on the DFO controversy with respect to science:

And yet another: DFO can't fix a fishway problem, and this isn't even science, which it seems to have ignored:

And yet another, this time a bunch of cases where DFO has not used science whcn it didn't suit its purposes; There are many cases to follow up on in this post.

And, yet another, this time DFO refused to admit that lice in BC had resistance to the only chemical for killing them, SLICE. In fact, it knew that in 2013 in Klemtu, there was evidence of this, even though it maintained, into 2018, that resistance was false and it knew of no such cases. Read the Living Oceans paper on it: Note that DFO continued, along with the fish farm industry, on the BC Minister of Agriculture committee on finfish acquaculture, and failed to come forward while that committee put out its report on fish farms in early 2018. 

And I have done a post on this issue in Clayoquot Sound, how the lice levels are as much as 18 times above the limit set by DFO:

Sunday, 3 February 2019

Transparency in Fish Farming? Well, NO Fraud? More Likely

One of the shibboleths that fish farms and governments shovel out by the manure load full, er, shovelful, is that fish farms are transparent.

Take a look at the Global Salmon Initiative fish farms trying to rebrand themselves by discovering the same spin that they 'discover' every five years or so that they are transparent and above all feeding humanity in its need for sustainable protein:

Really. Well, this post is about 'nontransparency'.

In NS/NL, Canada, Bill Bryden, a good citizen trying to protect our oceans and streams, did a freedom of information request on the ISA problem at Dartek and others in 2018, data kept by the government on this transparent industry, but which they refuse to give out the transparent information, make you do a time-consuming freedom of information request to get this information about the 'transparent' industry, and finally, when prodded for some time, put together a huge pile of texts and then redact all the information so the transparent industry doesn't have to be, er, transparent. Not to mention that in Bryden's case he was able to point out how they deliberately went about keeping information from the public that came from those transparent fish farms.

In case it hasn't settled in by now, or you work for the government down east, the issue is nontransparency in fish farming. This is only one way that the industry is nontransparent even as it claims everywhere, including the GSI, that one of the four major pillars in its 'sustainable' industry is transparency.

If a fish farm ever claims transparency to you, just ask them for the information. They will say no, or say go to the government, all the while knowing full well that the government won't give you the information, either. As in NONTRANSPARENT. Then they will tell you that they are transparent. Hmm.

You really have to look at the information that was redacted and sent to Bryden, about the worst disease in fish farming, ISA, to realize the scope of refusal to be transparent. Government complicity is a polite way to put their actions. Look here: It gives you a download button to the PDF of the answer to the freedom of information request.

Here's how it starts: the transmittal note from the government tells why it won't be transparent, as in it won't give you the information you want, listing all the reasons it doesn't have to give you the transparent information:

You will note that this is so secret they could not even give the public the name of the person who had made the freedom of information request, Bill Bryden. But do go through the 91 pages, yes, 91, of nontransparent information to see the truly staggering amount of information that they refused to give the public on this 'transparent' industry, on the worst disease in fish farming, ISAV. Once you have assured yourself that the industry/government is not transparent, do read what Bill has to say, because there are more issues in this subject than just transparency, as in government coverup, government manipulating disease testing so as not to find ISA, and so on.

Here is what Bryden has to say:

"Reading the link below Freedom of Info response from NS and my NL freedom of Info response (see earlier email) and media reports about ISAv outbreaks in NL starting Oct 2016 through 2018, it becomes painfully obvious that indeed ISAv infected fish left NS and were imported to NL at the Spyglass Cove and 2 others sites DURING the ISAv outbreaks in Dartek and Little Hbr government surveillanced hatcheries and that this was covered up by CFIA and the vets involved. The initial infection site at Spyglass Cove ISAv that was months later culled in NL has to this day never been listed by the CFIA on the public website - despite a provincial quarantine and cull. An elaborate scam to cull the fish before confirmation testing started last summer to try and hide the number of outbreaks. I managed to thwart this for the most part - but media lost interest.

The entire viral screening and surveillance system is broken and diseased fish regularly are shipped around in Canada and between countries by the open net pen aquaculture  industry. See the ICES Disease and Pathology Working Groups reports for the long list of hatcheries caught in recent years in Canada (government sites included). With 10s of millions of dollars involved in many shipments and entire provincial industries at stake, it is little wonder.

Attached is a heavily redacted NS government response to a freedom of info request made for documents concerning the NS government's investigation as to how this single incident at Dartek happened. They desperately went looking for a "spontaneous generation" excuse. Note also that most of the info was hidden behind CFIA "Protected B" schemes that aim to circumvent any freedom of info requests by faxing documents and using the telephone rather than emails for especially incriminating evidence.

Note the statements that "four loads that went to NL" etc statements on page 9! I have ATTIPAs that show every single import from these infected hatcheries in NS. The NS and Federal vets in this NS investigation were trying to figure out a way to explain the ISAv outbreak in the freshwater biosecure hatchery by blaming trucks carrying it back from NL open net pen transfer sites...when in fact the Sept shipments to NL were also later condemned in NL for ISAv! The company informed the CFIA that different trucks were use for each of the 6 shipments.

To this day the NL vets say that the virus in the NL open net pens that was allowed to fester for months and were supplied by Dartek DURING the ISAv outbreak  was not the same strain of virus as the Dartek ISAv. LOL I guess they were sampling with the wrong genetic primers (again!). Self policing at its finest!

A link to the document can be found here:

Kind Regards;
Bill Bryden"

This tells you that fish farms are nontransparent, and that governments do whatever it takes to make the entire process non-transparent. Note that a word like fraud is actually relevant here, as the CFIA tried to make the process give a negative response, along with the province. Fraud is a much stronger word than nontransparent.

You will find the name Amanda Swim at many points in the PDF you download above.

Here is a comment from a responder to the Bryden post: 

"Amanda Swim is the same vet that testified at our court case against the NS gov. for withholding access to information.  After the government lawyer trying six ways from Sunday to try and explain the incestuous relationship between fisheries and the industry the judge would not let that pass.  The judge basically said to Swim, “you work for the people of NS not Cooke Aquaculture”!  The coverup for the industry is completely unacceptable and we need to do our level best to take that behaviour out of our institutions..."

Please note that the word fraud is the best word to describe what the CFIA/DFO did in BC to find a lab that would give a negative response for the PRV virus. When DFO says it operates on the basis of evidence and science, just laugh at them, and then shake your head at the waste of time and money to keep the industry nontransparent.

Here is an example of the CFIA/DFO fraud on PRV testing in BC: I have done many posts on this subject.

Here is another example of DFO not following science in BC: Stan Proboszcz.

Here is another on DFO refusing to do science with Volpe on escaped Atlantics in BC rivers: Item 3 will take you to one post of a half dozen I did on this issue of refusal to use evidence and science.

Here is another:...

Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, if you believe your department is using evidence and science, you are the naive person in the trilogy of people who ask for science. They are: naive, hubris, or manipulating the situation.

The answer is so simple: put fish farms on land.

Update to Feb 5, 2019: DFO loses case on testing for PRV in farmed fish. Thank you Alex Morton and Ecojustice. From my BAD NEWS BITES post: 144. PRV - DFO Minister loses case, must test farmed fish for PRV. Thank you Alex Morton and Ecojustice: