The October list of most popular posts on this site has a few perennially popular entries and some otheres. An example is the 'Stinging Endictment of Farmed Fish as Food.' Take a look.
1. BAD NEWS BITES - it surprises even me that I am getting close to 6,000, yes 6,000, problems in the past three years in the global fish farm/seafood industry. Here is one from 2017: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/12/bad-news-bites-salmonseafood-idustry.html.
2. BAD NEWS BITES = yet another popular post on problems in the industry, also from 2017: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/08/bad-news-bites-salmonseafood-industry.html.
3. 338 On-land Fish Farms - around the world. Yes, there are that many and lots of people want to look at this gateway to the future - : https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/05/152-different-on-land-fish-farm-systems.html.
4. BC Stats Report - the best stats on the BC sectors of the seafood industry, including sport, the highest revenue, employment, GDP and so on, not fish farms: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/03/mar-21-2019-bc-stats-report-2016.html.
5. Stinging Indictment of Farmed Fish as Food - Mercola: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/04/stinging-indictment-of-farmed-salmon-as.html. Just how bad is farmed fish? Worse fat content than pizza. More Chemicals than you can shake a stick at. And more.
6. Cooke a Litany of Complaint - you won't believe that Cooke is this bad until you read this post: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/04/cooke-aquaculture-typical.html.
7. GOOD NEWS BITES - in on-land fish farms. Closing in on 600 posts. Who says on-land isn't a tsunami of popularity? https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2020/09/good-news-post-links-to-on-land-closed.html.
This is the proof that in-ocean fish farms are dinosaurs.
8. Wild BC Salmon Plan - https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/03/report-made-in-bc-wild-salmon-strategy.html.
Now move along to talk to John Horgan, Sonia Furstenau and Adam Olsen. And read the long comment after the post, as it has much to say.
Showing posts with label Cooke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cooke. Show all posts
Monday, 2 November 2020
Monday, 6 January 2020
Escapes! Escapes!
One of the worst things about fish farms is that when they have a problem it is usually a catastrophe. And, over time, the catastrophes get worse. Intrafish has put together a list of major escapes from fish farms around the world. Losses of less than 100,000 are not reported in these stats. And that means that a lot of escape catastrophes are not on this list of the largest catastrophes.
These fish carry diseases to other fish, interbreed with their own species, and marginalize salmonids in their own territory all around the world. Chinook are wild in Argentina now, for example, which is its own catastrophe, but a different kind. Pacific salmon in the Atlantic is a catastrophe, for the first time having wild but exotic salmonids from a different ocean in the Atlantic. Shouldn't happen.
Here is the Intrafish post: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/here-are-the-largest-recorded-farmed-atlantic-salmon-escapes-in-history/2-1-388082.
Here are their numbers:
AquaChile 2013 787,929 Damaged cages, wind
Marine Harvest, Chile 2018 680,000 Wind
Marine Harvest 2005 496,000 Wind, electricity
Cypress Island, WA 1997 369,000 Unknown
Meridian 2011 336,470 Tides
Sjolaks, Norway 2008 307,336 Unknown
Scottish Sea Farm 2000 258,000 Weather
Grieg Seafood, Shetlands 2002 238,420 Unknown
Australis, Chile 2016 173,156 Water currents
SalMar, Norway 2011 173,156 Unknown
Cooke Aquaculture, US 2017 150,000 Weather
Admiral Fish Farms, CDN 2010 138,800 Net Failure
Frida Sjofarming, Naroway 2013 122,914 Unknown
Huon Aqua, Tasmania 2018 120,000 Weather
Frida Sjofarming, Naroway 2014 119,942 Unknown
Cermaq, Chile 2017 115,703 Net Failure, Wind
Brilliant, Norway 2009 115,000 Unknown
Cypress, USA 1999 115,000 Unknown
Bakkafrost, Faroes 2017 109,515 Weather
ScanAm (Cypresse) 1996 100,000 Weather
Scottish Sea Farm 1999 100,000 Weather
Sjohall Havbruk, Norway 2008 100,000 Unknown
(Country of origin not always identified).
The total of escapes over 100,000 is a massive 4.73M. Yes, 4.73M. Intrafish says: 5.3M but does not explain the inconsistency.
What are the main points?
First: What about all the escapes less than 100,000? An example is the 21,000 from Mowi in BC in 2019. See links at bottom. Cermaq (Owned by Mitsubishi - we should stop buying their cars until their fish farms are on land) lost 130,000 fish to death, perhaps the result of using a Thermolicer to kill lice, or to warm water. Either case shows that fish farms need to be on land.
Second: Notice that all losses are due to weather, 'unknown' (whatever that means) and net failure. This is direct evidence that fish farms should not be in the world's oceans, because they can't take the environment. And, of course, if on land, these millions of fish would not be lost, and causing problems in the environment. Also, warm water losses, something that will only increase in future, can be eliminated on land.
And note that Cypress, aka Cooke, lost 263,000 in 2017, so the above number above is way low, 110,000 low. It got dinged $410,000 for the WA escape. Read this article on its negligence: http://www.southcoasttoday.ca/content/cooke-aqua-troubles-usa-grow-huge-fine-salmon-escape-disaster. How many other numbers above are way low?
Oh, and third: note that this farm, owned by Cooke now, has had three escape events exceeding 100,000 over the years.
Fourth: there are more escapes: Cermaq has lost 134,000 farmed salmon in Clayoquot Sound, BC in 2019 (see link below). And right now it has ISA problems in Chile. Mowi just lost 2.6 million farmed fish to, implausibly, warm water, in NL a couple of months ago, and has ISA in Norway, right now, too. So escapes, mortality and disease happen at the same time all around the world.
Fifth: the escapes are even worse than the numbers above. John Volpe's work on escapes in BC and breeding in Van Isle rivers found that of the 40 rivers swum that have multiple species of wild salmonids, 97% have 'wild' Atlantic salmon, meaning spawned fry and former farmed salmon, and now their progeny.
While I have done a half dozen posts on Volpe's work, here is one post: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/03/otto-langer-on-farmed-fish-escapes.html. Among other things, the post shows how to calculate the passive escape/leakage number of fish, outside of reported escapes.
Note that 'leakage/passive' escapes are 153,000 per crop in BC, but are not reported, and they are not put into the Intrafish stats. So, add that for the lowest country and then only higher around the globe. In other words, 'escapes'/leakage/unaccounted/spawning are far higher in fish farm countries. And the stats are not calculated or kept. So, it is far worse than Intrafish notes, as in catastrophes that are unreported, and denied by fish farms, though the scientists say yes.
Sixth, the Intrafish post above also points out that companies aren't about being public about the catastrophe of large, exotic fish escapes: "Tasmanian salmon farmer Huon Aquaculture refused to confirm if an escape reported earlier this year was above or below 100,000 Atlantic salmon" The refusal to be public is one reason citizens don't want fish farms: it's their problems and refusal to be honest about their problems. And fish farms also claim their problems are not their fault, in this case, Huon said waves were 11 metres high that went through their site. What this doesn't say, is that fish farms should not be in an ocean where they can we wiped out. They should be on land, so no catastrophe will happen. It's very simple.
And this lack of transparency also makes the public hate fish farms: "“The numbers quoted by media and in our local parliament were greatly exaggerated, and had no factual basis. Huon has no intention of providing a running commentary on false claims."" Nor is it making public the numbers of fish escaped. Not Good.
Seventh: Did you notice that almost half of the catastrophic escapes - 9 of 22 - are from unknown causes. So, if fish farms can't even name what caused the catastrophe, why are they in the ocean? This doesn't make sense.
***
And, just in, 2019, 130,000 dead fish, Cermaq, Clayoquot Sound: https://seashepherd.org/2019/11/21/massive-salmon-farm-die-off-pollutes-canadas-clayoquot-sound/. That is likely the low end figure as the Sea Shepherd stated it could go into the millions.
Now, the fish loss figure is penned at 205,000 dead fish, Cermaq, Clayoquot Sound, algae the cause: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2019/12/13/ngo-claims-cermaq-has-lost-thousands-of-salmon-off-canada-2/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=a79863a1b0-Americas_briefing_Dec_13_2019&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-a79863a1b0-92426209.
And, just in, 2019: escape in Chile: Marine Farm: https://salmonbusiness.com/chilean-authorities-report-salmon-escape/. No number as of December 2019.
And, just in, Dec 2019, Mowi, BC, 21,000 escape: https://globalnews.ca/news/6328416/bc-fish-farm-fire-salmon/?fbclid=IwAR22JxvN_pVUfV_7z2rny3KnMUAY3S8TZuIU5YMnipoiJL6SK79BHlFPcIA. This article has many good links in it about the problems with farmed salmon, for example, PRV.
And, just in, Jan 2020, Cermaq loses 23,000 fish: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/23-000-salmon-escape-from-cermaq-chile/2-1-731267?utm_source=IntraFish%20Aquaculture%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=1b8e87e7cc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_06_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ec4b681694-1b8e87e7cc-244877629. And these were coho salmon, not Atlantics.
Now, 7000 have been recaptured from 23,000 fish escape: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/cermaq-chile-recaptures-nearly-a-third-of-escaped-coho-salmon/2-1-733620?utm_source=IntraFish%20Aquaculture%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=77c291c0ed-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_10_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ec4b681694-77c291c0ed-244877629.
And, yet another: Jan 8, just in: Escape - Scotland, Mowi, 24,000 salmon: https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/second-big-escape-in-a-year-at-mowi-high-energy-site/?utm_campaign=newsletter__08_01_2020&utm_source=netflex&utm_medium=email. "It was the second incident at the site in under a year, following the escape of 24,572 fish with an average weight of 1.1kg during storms in November 2018." The loss was 500,000 Euros.
And, yet another - Salmar, Norway: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/salmar-reports-escape-at-damaged-salmon-farming-site/2-1-720114?utm_source=IntraFish%20Salmon%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=dfb52154ab-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_16_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5c825a4a64-dfb52154ab-245113141.
And, yet another: Mowi, Norway, 2500 fish: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/mowi-confirms-salmon-escape-in-northern-norway/2-1-734515?utm_source=IntraFish%20Aquaculture%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=77c291c0ed-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_10_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ec4b681694-77c291c0ed-244877629.
And, yet another: Escape - Norway, Salmar, number not yet known: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/salmar-reports-escape-at-damaged-salmon-farming-site/2-1-720114?utm_source=IntraFish%20Salmon%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=e1fa7ed92c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_13_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5c825a4a64-e1fa7ed92c-245113141.
And, yet another: Escape, Chile, Tornagaleones: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/chiles-tornagaleones-loses-harvest-sized-salmon-in-escape/2-1-712848?utm_source=IntraFish%20Salmon%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=0961630456-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_06_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5c825a4a64-0961630456-245113141.
And, yet another: Escapes - Norway, 287,000 salmon in 2019: https://www.intrafish.com/analysis/the-biggest-farmed-salmon-escapes-of-2019/2-1-734544?utm_source=IntraFish%20Aquaculture%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=f2ab71ce3a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_13_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ec4b681694-f2ab71ce3a-244877629.
And, yet another: Escape - Scotland, Mowi, 74,000, Jan 2020: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2020/01/21/mowi-loses-74000-fish-from-exposed-scottish-site/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=9120b002e5-Europe_briefing_Jan_21_2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-9120b002e5-92426209. And another article on this issue: https://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=21&id=106088&l=e&special=&ndb=1%20target=.
And, yet another: historical Escapes, Mowi Scotland: https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/73600-fish-escape-from-mowi-site-after-storm-rips-net/?utm_campaign=newsletter__22_01_2020&utm_source=netflex&utm_medium=email. These are historical escapes: "Earlier this month Fish Farming Expert reported that nearly 24,000 salmon with an average weight of 4.5kg escaped from Mowi Scotland’s high-energy site at Hellisay, Isle of Barra in October. It was the second incident at the site in under a year, following the escape of 24,572 fish with an average weight of 1.1kg during storms in November 2018."
And, yet another: Huge Escapes in 2019 Prompts Norway to Review Escapes - the 287,000 fish: https://www.intrafish.com/salmon/after-year-of-record-farmed-salmon-escapes-norway-rethinks-strategy/2-1-742166.
And, yet another, Jan 29, 2020: huge escapes, Norway: https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/norway-290000-salmon-escaped-in-2019/?utm_campaign=newsletter__29_01_2020&utm_source=netflex&utm_medium=email. " Figures from the Fisheries Directorate show that 290,000 salmon escaped in 2019, along with 2,000 rainbow trout, and that fish farmers reported 49 escape events. The last year that escape numbers were similarly high was 2014, when 286,000 salmon escaped. In 2018, by comparison, 160,000 salmon and 3,000 rainbow trout escaped in 44 reported incidents."
And yet another, science article: Tens of Millions of Salmon Have Escaped - globally, over the decades: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/faf.12214.
And, yet another, March 2020: trout, Cermaq, Chile, Magallanes, 40- to 50-thousand fish: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2020/03/13/trout-escape-cermaq-magallanes-site-company-confirms-norway-plant-still-operating/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=bdc1e4bce3-Americas_briefing_Mar_13_2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-bdc1e4bce3-92426209.
And, yet another: Bakkafrost Can't Find 200,000 Escaped Fish - Iceland, of 1M lost due to storm: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/bakkafrost-still-hunting-for-200-000-escaped-salmon/2-1-773115?utm_source=IntraFish%20Salmon%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=ce9fa102e9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_03_16_12_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5c825a4a64-ce9fa102e9-245113141.
And yet another:
These fish carry diseases to other fish, interbreed with their own species, and marginalize salmonids in their own territory all around the world. Chinook are wild in Argentina now, for example, which is its own catastrophe, but a different kind. Pacific salmon in the Atlantic is a catastrophe, for the first time having wild but exotic salmonids from a different ocean in the Atlantic. Shouldn't happen.
Here is the Intrafish post: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/here-are-the-largest-recorded-farmed-atlantic-salmon-escapes-in-history/2-1-388082.
Here are their numbers:
AquaChile 2013 787,929 Damaged cages, wind
Marine Harvest, Chile 2018 680,000 Wind
Marine Harvest 2005 496,000 Wind, electricity
Cypress Island, WA 1997 369,000 Unknown
Meridian 2011 336,470 Tides
Sjolaks, Norway 2008 307,336 Unknown
Scottish Sea Farm 2000 258,000 Weather
Grieg Seafood, Shetlands 2002 238,420 Unknown
Australis, Chile 2016 173,156 Water currents
SalMar, Norway 2011 173,156 Unknown
Cooke Aquaculture, US 2017 150,000 Weather
Admiral Fish Farms, CDN 2010 138,800 Net Failure
Frida Sjofarming, Naroway 2013 122,914 Unknown
Huon Aqua, Tasmania 2018 120,000 Weather
Frida Sjofarming, Naroway 2014 119,942 Unknown
Cermaq, Chile 2017 115,703 Net Failure, Wind
Brilliant, Norway 2009 115,000 Unknown
Cypress, USA 1999 115,000 Unknown
Bakkafrost, Faroes 2017 109,515 Weather
ScanAm (Cypresse) 1996 100,000 Weather
Scottish Sea Farm 1999 100,000 Weather
Sjohall Havbruk, Norway 2008 100,000 Unknown
(Country of origin not always identified).
The total of escapes over 100,000 is a massive 4.73M. Yes, 4.73M. Intrafish says: 5.3M but does not explain the inconsistency.
What are the main points?
First: What about all the escapes less than 100,000? An example is the 21,000 from Mowi in BC in 2019. See links at bottom. Cermaq (Owned by Mitsubishi - we should stop buying their cars until their fish farms are on land) lost 130,000 fish to death, perhaps the result of using a Thermolicer to kill lice, or to warm water. Either case shows that fish farms need to be on land.
Second: Notice that all losses are due to weather, 'unknown' (whatever that means) and net failure. This is direct evidence that fish farms should not be in the world's oceans, because they can't take the environment. And, of course, if on land, these millions of fish would not be lost, and causing problems in the environment. Also, warm water losses, something that will only increase in future, can be eliminated on land.
And note that Cypress, aka Cooke, lost 263,000 in 2017, so the above number above is way low, 110,000 low. It got dinged $410,000 for the WA escape. Read this article on its negligence: http://www.southcoasttoday.ca/content/cooke-aqua-troubles-usa-grow-huge-fine-salmon-escape-disaster. How many other numbers above are way low?
Oh, and third: note that this farm, owned by Cooke now, has had three escape events exceeding 100,000 over the years.
Fourth: there are more escapes: Cermaq has lost 134,000 farmed salmon in Clayoquot Sound, BC in 2019 (see link below). And right now it has ISA problems in Chile. Mowi just lost 2.6 million farmed fish to, implausibly, warm water, in NL a couple of months ago, and has ISA in Norway, right now, too. So escapes, mortality and disease happen at the same time all around the world.
Fifth: the escapes are even worse than the numbers above. John Volpe's work on escapes in BC and breeding in Van Isle rivers found that of the 40 rivers swum that have multiple species of wild salmonids, 97% have 'wild' Atlantic salmon, meaning spawned fry and former farmed salmon, and now their progeny.
While I have done a half dozen posts on Volpe's work, here is one post: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/03/otto-langer-on-farmed-fish-escapes.html. Among other things, the post shows how to calculate the passive escape/leakage number of fish, outside of reported escapes.
Note that 'leakage/passive' escapes are 153,000 per crop in BC, but are not reported, and they are not put into the Intrafish stats. So, add that for the lowest country and then only higher around the globe. In other words, 'escapes'/leakage/unaccounted/spawning are far higher in fish farm countries. And the stats are not calculated or kept. So, it is far worse than Intrafish notes, as in catastrophes that are unreported, and denied by fish farms, though the scientists say yes.
Sixth, the Intrafish post above also points out that companies aren't about being public about the catastrophe of large, exotic fish escapes: "Tasmanian salmon farmer Huon Aquaculture refused to confirm if an escape reported earlier this year was above or below 100,000 Atlantic salmon" The refusal to be public is one reason citizens don't want fish farms: it's their problems and refusal to be honest about their problems. And fish farms also claim their problems are not their fault, in this case, Huon said waves were 11 metres high that went through their site. What this doesn't say, is that fish farms should not be in an ocean where they can we wiped out. They should be on land, so no catastrophe will happen. It's very simple.
And this lack of transparency also makes the public hate fish farms: "“The numbers quoted by media and in our local parliament were greatly exaggerated, and had no factual basis. Huon has no intention of providing a running commentary on false claims."" Nor is it making public the numbers of fish escaped. Not Good.
Seventh: Did you notice that almost half of the catastrophic escapes - 9 of 22 - are from unknown causes. So, if fish farms can't even name what caused the catastrophe, why are they in the ocean? This doesn't make sense.
***
And, just in, 2019, 130,000 dead fish, Cermaq, Clayoquot Sound: https://seashepherd.org/2019/11/21/massive-salmon-farm-die-off-pollutes-canadas-clayoquot-sound/. That is likely the low end figure as the Sea Shepherd stated it could go into the millions.
Now, the fish loss figure is penned at 205,000 dead fish, Cermaq, Clayoquot Sound, algae the cause: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2019/12/13/ngo-claims-cermaq-has-lost-thousands-of-salmon-off-canada-2/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=a79863a1b0-Americas_briefing_Dec_13_2019&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-a79863a1b0-92426209.
And, just in, 2019: escape in Chile: Marine Farm: https://salmonbusiness.com/chilean-authorities-report-salmon-escape/. No number as of December 2019.
And, just in, Dec 2019, Mowi, BC, 21,000 escape: https://globalnews.ca/news/6328416/bc-fish-farm-fire-salmon/?fbclid=IwAR22JxvN_pVUfV_7z2rny3KnMUAY3S8TZuIU5YMnipoiJL6SK79BHlFPcIA. This article has many good links in it about the problems with farmed salmon, for example, PRV.
And, just in, Jan 2020, Cermaq loses 23,000 fish: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/23-000-salmon-escape-from-cermaq-chile/2-1-731267?utm_source=IntraFish%20Aquaculture%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=1b8e87e7cc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_06_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ec4b681694-1b8e87e7cc-244877629. And these were coho salmon, not Atlantics.
Now, 7000 have been recaptured from 23,000 fish escape: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/cermaq-chile-recaptures-nearly-a-third-of-escaped-coho-salmon/2-1-733620?utm_source=IntraFish%20Aquaculture%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=77c291c0ed-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_10_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ec4b681694-77c291c0ed-244877629.
And, yet another: Jan 8, just in: Escape - Scotland, Mowi, 24,000 salmon: https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/second-big-escape-in-a-year-at-mowi-high-energy-site/?utm_campaign=newsletter__08_01_2020&utm_source=netflex&utm_medium=email. "It was the second incident at the site in under a year, following the escape of 24,572 fish with an average weight of 1.1kg during storms in November 2018." The loss was 500,000 Euros.
And, yet another - Salmar, Norway: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/salmar-reports-escape-at-damaged-salmon-farming-site/2-1-720114?utm_source=IntraFish%20Salmon%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=dfb52154ab-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_16_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5c825a4a64-dfb52154ab-245113141.
And, yet another: Mowi, Norway, 2500 fish: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/mowi-confirms-salmon-escape-in-northern-norway/2-1-734515?utm_source=IntraFish%20Aquaculture%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=77c291c0ed-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_10_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ec4b681694-77c291c0ed-244877629.
And, yet another: Escape - Norway, Salmar, number not yet known: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/salmar-reports-escape-at-damaged-salmon-farming-site/2-1-720114?utm_source=IntraFish%20Salmon%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=e1fa7ed92c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_13_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5c825a4a64-e1fa7ed92c-245113141.
And, yet another: Escape, Chile, Tornagaleones: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/chiles-tornagaleones-loses-harvest-sized-salmon-in-escape/2-1-712848?utm_source=IntraFish%20Salmon%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=0961630456-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_06_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5c825a4a64-0961630456-245113141.
And, yet another: Escapes - Norway, 287,000 salmon in 2019: https://www.intrafish.com/analysis/the-biggest-farmed-salmon-escapes-of-2019/2-1-734544?utm_source=IntraFish%20Aquaculture%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=f2ab71ce3a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_13_07_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ec4b681694-f2ab71ce3a-244877629.
And, yet another: Escape - Scotland, Mowi, 74,000, Jan 2020: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2020/01/21/mowi-loses-74000-fish-from-exposed-scottish-site/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=9120b002e5-Europe_briefing_Jan_21_2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-9120b002e5-92426209. And another article on this issue: https://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=21&id=106088&l=e&special=&ndb=1%20target=.
And, yet another: historical Escapes, Mowi Scotland: https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/73600-fish-escape-from-mowi-site-after-storm-rips-net/?utm_campaign=newsletter__22_01_2020&utm_source=netflex&utm_medium=email. These are historical escapes: "Earlier this month Fish Farming Expert reported that nearly 24,000 salmon with an average weight of 4.5kg escaped from Mowi Scotland’s high-energy site at Hellisay, Isle of Barra in October. It was the second incident at the site in under a year, following the escape of 24,572 fish with an average weight of 1.1kg during storms in November 2018."
And, yet another: Huge Escapes in 2019 Prompts Norway to Review Escapes - the 287,000 fish: https://www.intrafish.com/salmon/after-year-of-record-farmed-salmon-escapes-norway-rethinks-strategy/2-1-742166.
And, yet another, Jan 29, 2020: huge escapes, Norway: https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/norway-290000-salmon-escaped-in-2019/?utm_campaign=newsletter__29_01_2020&utm_source=netflex&utm_medium=email. " Figures from the Fisheries Directorate show that 290,000 salmon escaped in 2019, along with 2,000 rainbow trout, and that fish farmers reported 49 escape events. The last year that escape numbers were similarly high was 2014, when 286,000 salmon escaped. In 2018, by comparison, 160,000 salmon and 3,000 rainbow trout escaped in 44 reported incidents."
And yet another, science article: Tens of Millions of Salmon Have Escaped - globally, over the decades: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/faf.12214.
And, yet another, March 2020: trout, Cermaq, Chile, Magallanes, 40- to 50-thousand fish: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2020/03/13/trout-escape-cermaq-magallanes-site-company-confirms-norway-plant-still-operating/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=bdc1e4bce3-Americas_briefing_Mar_13_2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-bdc1e4bce3-92426209.
And, yet another: Bakkafrost Can't Find 200,000 Escaped Fish - Iceland, of 1M lost due to storm: https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/bakkafrost-still-hunting-for-200-000-escaped-salmon/2-1-773115?utm_source=IntraFish%20Salmon%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=ce9fa102e9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_03_16_12_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5c825a4a64-ce9fa102e9-245113141.
And yet another:
Saturday, 16 November 2019
Brett Bundale - 2.6 Million Salmon Die - Fish Farms Aren't about Jobs and Revenue
HI Chronicle Herald
Here is something for you/Bundale to investigate: fish farms
tell govts that they bring jobs and revenue, and govts fall for it all over the
world. But it isn’t true.
I have found that the employment is far lower than they say
it will be and that it is going to decline 80% more in Canada as the Norwegian
style automated fish farms bring their technology to NL, etc.
Here is an article that addresses the jobs issue in your
area: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/07/fish-farm-problems-on-global-scale-inka.html.
It also addresses the issue of revenue. The reality is that
contribution to GDP is far below industry revenue, with the profit going back to Norway
for distribution to shareholders. The host country is left with environmentally
degraded ocean and nothing more.
In BC, the stats are generated by the BC Stats people, and
their report says, 1800 jobs, while industry inflates the figure to 7000, or
almost 400% higher than it actually is. I used to write the same kind of
analysis when I worked for the BC govt in Treasury Board Staff.
Here are the figures from the last two reports. Note that,
among other things, employment and GDP contributions is, again, way below
revenue, hence the money goes out of Canada. The 1800 job figure has declined
over the last 20 years, and you can multiply that figure by .2 to arrive at the
actual employment in the industry when the automation gets here: 1800 X .2 =
360. Puny employment, huge environmental damage, puny GDP.
See: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/03/mar-21-2019-bc-stats-report-2016.html.
Item 10 deals with GDP versus revenue. The bottom of the post deals with job
numbers and Norway jobs, leading to 80% down in the coming years.
Fish farms need to be on land. Fish farms say it can’t be
done. This is like their jobs and revenue spin – it isn’t true. My list has 300
on-land fish farms around the world, while fish farms say it isn’t possible,
ie, BS.
Brett might want to revisit these issues. If all you are
left with is destroyed ocean, why bother with in-ocean fish farms. Put them on
land.
DC Reid
Monday, 23 September 2019
DFO Fish Farm Poll - Weird Results
Two recent polls have shown that the vast majority of British Columbians support wild salmon.
1. BC
residents love salmon as much as Quebec does French: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/11/hasta-la-vista-liberals-salmon-as.html.
2. 75%
of BC citizens want fish farms banned and put on land. There is zero social
licence for fish farms in BC: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/06/vast-majority-against-in-ocean-fish.html.
DFO, however, doesn't want to know these answers and so it commissioned a $100,000 poll to give it different answers. Because DFO supports fish farms, it wants poll results that support the story it wants to tell and push forward.
Its EKOS Research poll is: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/fisheries_oceans/2019/082-18-e/report.pdf.
It has some strange numbers, strange methods, strange pairings of people, and gets results that say as long as DFO communicates its new, safe regulations (read FARM, and that post:
https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/07/dfos-public-consultation-on-framework.html, which is littered with problems. The main problem is that DFO will not listen to BC residents and
Atlantic Canadians who want fish farms put on land, just like the rest of the world.) everything will be hunky dory.
https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/07/dfos-public-consultation-on-framework.html, which is littered with problems. The main problem is that DFO will not listen to BC residents and
Atlantic Canadians who want fish farms put on land, just like the rest of the world.) everything will be hunky dory.
So what are those odd things in the report? Well, here are some of them:
Here is some intro text (page 6 in the PDF, ES): "Alongside other federal regulators, DFO is participating in the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Regulatory Review, and is exploring options to improve aquaculture’s regulatory framework, as well as other program enhancements. In 2018, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard announced that the Government of Canada asked Canada’s Chief Science Advisor to lead an Independent Expert Panel on Aquaculture Science to evaluate the department’s use of science in decision making, as well as federal communications concerning aquaculture."
In other words, DFO doesn't care what people think, it only wants to back up its story, and it is going to use science and evidence to back it up. In even other words, this tells you the result was in before the poll was done.
Oh, and I have a half dozen posts that show DFO doesn't do science and evidence. Here is one, with a long list of refusals by DFO: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/02/evidence-and-science-based-decisions-at.html.
Anyway, now to the Exec Summary of this report:
"Awareness of and Support for Aquaculture:
*Just over half of the general public (52%) say they’ve heard, seen or read something about aquaculture in the past year.
•Those living in coastal communities (60%) were far more likely to recall seeing, hearing, or reading something about aquaculture in the past year, while indigenous respondents were less likely to say they heard, read or saw something (48%)"
On the 52%, it is not hard to see that those in provinces without oceans will not have heard of fish farms. These are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and virtually all of Quebec - well over 50% of our land mass. But their opinions are irrelevant - because they don't have fish farms. They need not be asked the questions.
On the 60% in coastal regions, I doubt this. If 75% of BC residents want fish farms out of the water, that means this poll's 60% is wrong. (And, jump to the bottom for discussion of the 'General Public' and the 'Coastal' component, and the problems with them).
As for Indigenous, if you ask them in, again, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and virtually all of Quebec, they don't have oceans and will not have heard of fish farms. Their opinions are thus irrelevant.
If the coastal Indigenous were asked, I would say that virtually 100% of Indigenous in BC would have heard of fish farms, and 90% are against in-ocean fish farms. Go look at this site, and consider, the Broughton Archipelago, Clayoquot Sound and other places where there is great animosity to fish farms.
It was only in late September 2019 that five more fish farms were shut down in the Broughton because of over-whelming hatred by the Indigenous, and the rest of 17 others will be shut down by 2023. And that is because of the 200 day occupation of sites by Ernest Alfred and others of his First Nation.
I say 100% of Indigenous on this side of the continental divide know about fish farms and don't like them. Given the choice between wild and farmed, almost 100% will choose wild.
Their ENGOs are all against fish farms: Raven, Coast Protectors, UBCIC (Indian Chiefs), Salmon R Sacred, Ernest Alfred et al and so on. In addition there are at least a dozen ENGOs that are against fish farms. A few are: Watershed Watch, David Suzuki Foundation, Living Oceans, Georgia Strait Alliance, Clayoquot Action, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, among others.
Oh, and one final thing, when fish farms say Indigenous work for them, they are talking about 172 jobs, that's all. It is peanuts.
Moving on, the entire report suffers the same problem: polling people who have no knowledge of fish farms because they are from landlocked provinces, then dumping them in with provinces with fish farms. So, all the results are skewed.
The report goes on: "When asked if what they recall hearing, reading or seeing about aquaculture recall was positive or negative, two in three general public respondents (66%) say what they recall was negative.
•Coastal Canadians are just as likely as the general public to say what they heard was negative (63%), while Indigenous Peoples are less likely to say what they heard was negative (53%).
These results suffer the same problems as I have discussed above, they don't agree with other polls and they dump people who have no fish farms in their jurisdiction in with those who have fish farms.
The Executive Summary goes on: "Despite the fact that most respondents exposed to information about aquaculture recall negative information, support for aquaculture outpaces opposition to it by a significant margin among all three audiences.
•The general public (45%) and coastal Canadians (46%) are most likely to express support, followed by Indigenous Peoples (39%)."
I don't agree that support has a significant margin (39% is counter-factual, for example). Go back to the first two polls at the beginning of this article for polls that show significant margin.
And again the results suffer the problems I mentioned in the first example above.
Now, moving on to the reasons Canadians don't like fish farms, the report says this: " Those opposing aquaculture most often point to two main reasons: because of perceived irresponsible practices by the industry or because of perceived negative effects that aquaculture has on wild fish populations."
This seems innocuous enough, but in fact it is the killer in the poll. The next section deals with what the govt can do to quell the negative reaction. This is what I mean when saying the result is in before the poll is done.
The solution is to take fish farms out of the water. But DFO ignores this as it supports fish farms, and totally disregards what Canadians want, er, BC residents.
So, here it is:
"Importance of Government Communications
Nine in ten Canadians (89%) say it is important for the federal government to inform Canadian consumers about the fish farming and how it is regulated."
This leads directly into the FARM process, when the reality is that BC wild salmon are now in crisis - caused by DFO - and we don't need anymore rejigging of fish farming. We and our salmon need them out of the water.
In BC the majority of people are telling DFO to take fish farms out of the water. This, of course, is in direct contradiction to the 89% quoted above. There is a mistake here. And if well over 50% of Canadians have no connection with the ocean, they probably want this; however, their views are irrelevant.
But this quote leads directly to later in the report, examination of new regulations and so on.
So what should DFO do? This poll says that people:
"When asked what would best demonstrate that the government is managing aquaculture or fish farming in a responsible way, general public respondents were split between publicly sharing health data on farmed fish (51%) and government investment in minimizing the environmental impacts of aquaculture/fish farming (50%)."
You will note that this also leads into a process like FARM, which also says this. But, instead of investing in minimizing impacts, but leaving fish farms in the water, it is absolutely straight forward that the solution is: put fish farms on land.
Here is a telling point, though:
"Both coastal (65%) and indigenous respondents (67%) are more likely than the general public to say they prefer wild-caught fish over farmed fish"
You have to remember that you add coastal and Indigenous together and divide it by the total number of people asked the questions. But I just noticed that the General Public category includes city dwellers in a province, say BC, even in Vancouver, where you look out on the sea, while having more than 50% of people in the same category, but living where there are no oceans all across Canada.
When in fact, the BC general public should not be part of the General Public but be added to the coastal people category.
This is further skewed as coastal people are:
"The sample of Canadians living in ex-urban, rural or remote areas within an hour of a coast (n=961) are described as “coastal Canadians”." and,
The indigenous people again includes all across Canada where well over 50% of our land mass has no oceans. They are dumped in with coastal Indigenous, who I have already explained, are vastly against fish farms.
So this skewing of the categories leads to skewing of results. And, as pointed out, the results do not agree with the two polls quoted at the top of this article.
So, later in the report, the stats on who has fish farms shows (P36, PDF):
"Residents of the Prairies (89%), Ontario (86%), and Quebec (84%) are least likely to be aware of a fish or shellfish farming operation in their area."
This implies that you could leave out roughly 85% of the respondents because their views are irrelevant - they don't have fish farms.
One final thing: Appendix A which is about sample sizes and response rate of people, shows a staggering number of non-responses. In telephone interviews, for example, only 9.5% of people called,
answered the survey.
The final take away is: only 9.5% of people took the poll and 85% of them don't have fish farms. DFO, get a grip. Your poll has only 1.4% of people who have fish farms. Hmm.
***********
1. And the stats on 2019 are devastating. See how much help salmon need. There is no time left to wait on making changes: https://watershedwatch.ca/greg-taylor-an-overview-of-2019s-salmon-returns/?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=b9ff6f89d7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_04_04_38_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-b9ff6f89d7-166907249&mc_cid=b9ff6f89d7&mc_eid=5777c92bcd.
So, here it is:
"Importance of Government Communications
Nine in ten Canadians (89%) say it is important for the federal government to inform Canadian consumers about the fish farming and how it is regulated."
This leads directly into the FARM process, when the reality is that BC wild salmon are now in crisis - caused by DFO - and we don't need anymore rejigging of fish farming. We and our salmon need them out of the water.
In BC the majority of people are telling DFO to take fish farms out of the water. This, of course, is in direct contradiction to the 89% quoted above. There is a mistake here. And if well over 50% of Canadians have no connection with the ocean, they probably want this; however, their views are irrelevant.
But this quote leads directly to later in the report, examination of new regulations and so on.
So what should DFO do? This poll says that people:
"When asked what would best demonstrate that the government is managing aquaculture or fish farming in a responsible way, general public respondents were split between publicly sharing health data on farmed fish (51%) and government investment in minimizing the environmental impacts of aquaculture/fish farming (50%)."
You will note that this also leads into a process like FARM, which also says this. But, instead of investing in minimizing impacts, but leaving fish farms in the water, it is absolutely straight forward that the solution is: put fish farms on land.
Here is a telling point, though:
"Both coastal (65%) and indigenous respondents (67%) are more likely than the general public to say they prefer wild-caught fish over farmed fish"
You have to remember that you add coastal and Indigenous together and divide it by the total number of people asked the questions. But I just noticed that the General Public category includes city dwellers in a province, say BC, even in Vancouver, where you look out on the sea, while having more than 50% of people in the same category, but living where there are no oceans all across Canada.
When in fact, the BC general public should not be part of the General Public but be added to the coastal people category.
This is further skewed as coastal people are:
"The sample of Canadians living in ex-urban, rural or remote areas within an hour of a coast (n=961) are described as “coastal Canadians”." and,
The indigenous people again includes all across Canada where well over 50% of our land mass has no oceans. They are dumped in with coastal Indigenous, who I have already explained, are vastly against fish farms.
So this skewing of the categories leads to skewing of results. And, as pointed out, the results do not agree with the two polls quoted at the top of this article.
So, later in the report, the stats on who has fish farms shows (P36, PDF):
"Residents of the Prairies (89%), Ontario (86%), and Quebec (84%) are least likely to be aware of a fish or shellfish farming operation in their area."
This implies that you could leave out roughly 85% of the respondents because their views are irrelevant - they don't have fish farms.
One final thing: Appendix A which is about sample sizes and response rate of people, shows a staggering number of non-responses. In telephone interviews, for example, only 9.5% of people called,
answered the survey.
The final take away is: only 9.5% of people took the poll and 85% of them don't have fish farms. DFO, get a grip. Your poll has only 1.4% of people who have fish farms. Hmm.
***********
1. And the stats on 2019 are devastating. See how much help salmon need. There is no time left to wait on making changes: https://watershedwatch.ca/greg-taylor-an-overview-of-2019s-salmon-returns/?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=b9ff6f89d7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_04_04_38_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-b9ff6f89d7-166907249&mc_cid=b9ff6f89d7&mc_eid=5777c92bcd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)