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.

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.

Problems, Solutions, Good News - Updated Nov 27, 2019

In as few words as possible, this post solves the global fish farm problem: 

1. The problems with fish farms: I have been stunned to find more than 5,000 problems in the global fish farm/seafood industry in the last four years. I never thought it was this bad. Here is the current post, which also gives you links to the other posts: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/09/bad-news-bites-post-13.html.  The current post will take the number of problems to 5,500. Fish farms are not sustainable and are currently being prosecuted for price-fixing and collusion. And in NL, Mowi lost 2.6M fish in September.

Here is the original post: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.

2. The solution for fish farms - moving onto land. My list now has 300 on-land fish farms, yes,  300. This is where all fish farms should go: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/05/152-different-on-land-fish-farm-systems.html. This post also has almost 25 studies on all issues to do with on-land farms. Fish farm claims that it can't be done are false.

3. The good news.  In six months, I have found 250 good news articles and analyses about the tsunami of on-land fish farms sweeping the globe: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/11/good-news-post-links-to-on-land-closed.html.

That's it. You don't need to know anything more, just keep telling DFO that you know the problems, solutions and have the good news.

Start your letter: Hi Bernadette Jordan: min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.

DFO/SRKWs/Chinook/Fish Farms - Do Something - Updated Mar 19, 2019

Hi Jonathan

DFO has been managing salmon and killer whales into extinction for the past 50 years.  Now you want to do more of the same that got them into this state: curtailing fishing.

In short order there will be no more salmon or SRKWs in BC. The alternative would be to try something different and get a different outcome.

I have sent you an in-depth treatment of this subject with more than 60 references: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/07/dfos-public-consultation-on-framework.html.

I also sent you a post on how to feed SRKWs right now: net returning Nitinat and Cowichan 4 year chinook; have a plane spot SRKWS, and use a helicopter to airlift live-tanks of the netted fish and drop them in front of a pod. We should be able to move a thousand fish a day. Do this for a few weeks and this is a solution for SRKWs for 2019.

Moving on, you need to remember the next two points:

BC residents love salmon as much as Quebec does French: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/11/hasta-la-vista-liberals-salmon-as.html.

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.

Overall: you would help rather than destroy the situation by: concentrating on freshwater habitat restoration (your funding plan places too many restrictions on applications to be useful); a dozen netpens of 2-million, sterilized, fin-clipped chinook each, every year for the next decade at minimum (Nitinat and Cowichan stocks); epigenetic hatchery work; and new measures based on solutions to climate change.

I am working on a paper on solutions to climate change.

Having said all this, there are several fish farm issues transpiring at the same time, but with DFO not listening to BC residents saying we want fish farms on land:

1. Fish farm sea lice have been out of control for the past several years in Clayoquot and Nootka sounds. This is Nootka:  https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/08/lice-out-of-control-clayoquotnootka.html. This is Clayoquot: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/08/dfo-likes-lice-more-than-wild-salmon.html.

2. DFO has been and still is trying to weasel around the PRV/HSMI issue: https://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2019/09/special-meeting-of-dfo-fish-committee.html?fbclid=IwAR3IfTM2a3UnVglUQmBB-WwKvKUJLu0DlCa9cZfewLsJoIfR1ZtlVI-p8S0.

       3. DFO is trying to consider this crisis situation as just business as usual (ignoring the Big Bar Slide, where it is successfully live lifting fish above the problem, like my SRKW suggestion), and is talking about its fish FARM system, as though we were not in a crisis with salmon, SRKWS and fish farms. Here is how bad FARM is: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/07/dfos-public-consultation-on-framework.html. 

4. Three new viruses have been found in BC farmed/wild salmon:  https://www.intrafish.com/aquaculture/1847190/discovery-of-new-viruses-pose-risk-to-bc-salmon-farming?utm_source=IntraFish+Salmon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f68674bea9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_09_11_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5c825a4a64-f68674bea9-245113141. And here: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2019/09/05/three-new-viruses-encountered-in-canadian-chinook-sockeye/.

Jonathan, you need to get fish farms out of the water, and do realistic wild salmon restoration.

Finally, Jonathan, where are those Nahmint chinook salmon, abundant 50 years ago before DFO managed them into extinction?

This is how good it was and should be:

Where are the chinook now, Jonathan?

Do something.

DC Reid

***

1. Worst sockeye return ever - 2019:  https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/09/09/worst-year-for-salmon/?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=e796540934-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_11_08_58&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-e796540934-166907249&mc_cid=e796540934&mc_eid=5777c92bcd.

2. National Fish Conservancy files suit to force NOAA to saveSRKWs and chinook:  http://wildfishconservancy.org/20200318NOAAsuitPR.pdf.

Lice Out of Control - Clayoquot/Nootka Sound, Cermaq, Grieg

Well, we read that in Clayoquot Sound lice have been out of control for the past three years, at levels far beyond the level that kills wild salmon fry: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/08/dfo-likes-lice-more-than-wild-salmon.html. 

Chinook adults had dropped to 501 in 2012, before the current problem occurred, meaning, fish farms kill killer whales, among other things like wild salmon.

And now, in Nootka Sound, the next sound north of Clayoquot, Grieg is asking for a new licence for Esperanza Inlet, when the other three licences it has have lice levels that are also lethal to wild salmon fry: https://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Lutes-Creek-Comments1.pdf.

From Watershed's June 17, 2019 letter to DFO, Bernie Taekema, here is an opening salvo: 

"We are opposed to the granting of another licence in Hecate Channel, where three farms currently operate with a history of problems with sea lice control, including drug resistance. We find the application at best premature, for the reasons elaborated below. This applicant has failed utterly to demonstrate the ability to control lice at its existing farms and has, so far as we can determine, no new plan, equipment or treatment regime to offer."

They go on to say: "We note at the outset your advice by telephone that you are considering issuing the licence but without increasing the total biomass licensed in Hecate Channel."

This plays right into one of the strategies of fish farms like the multi-national, multi-billion dollar Grieg, Cermaq and Mowi Harvest - that operate in BC. What they do is get the farm in the water at a lower biomass, knowing full well that once its in the water, it ain't coming out ever again. Second, fish farms in short order, say a couple of years, start applying for larger biomass. This is standard practice, bait and switch, fish farm tactics - all around the world. There is not one place in the world where they don't start asking for more biomass. They know this in advance and it is only the people of the province and DFO that don't know.

But, let's get back the letter, which is about sea lice. And DFO here has bought into the fish farm tactic about lower bio-mass, as in they are as dumb as anyone who knows nothing about fish farms, like say the average British Columbian, but, working at DFO, should know a whole lot more.

Sorry, back to the letter: WSS et al point out that biomass is about sewage on the bottom of the ocean, not lice, so it won't do anything about that problem, then go on to point out:

"In fact, it will likely make those issues worse, as Lutes is not currently licensed to use Paramove: [this is a fancy, brand  name for peroxide] an outbreak of resistant lice will be impossible to treat and will serve as a source of re-infection for the other farms."

Just how bad were the lice? Well in Hecate Channel:

"The Hecate tenure was stocked in October 2017 and by July 2018 was reporting lice numbers averaging 7.37. In-feed treatment was apparently not  undertaken until August, when the lice count reached an average of 32.86;  and it apparently failed, as the September and October counts remained at 20.63 and 24.31, respectively. A hydrogen peroxide bath treatment administered in October was temporarily effective; but by December, lice were again at 5.79 and a further in-feed treatment was administered."

Even one or two lice can kill a wild salmon fry. 

At the Steamer Point fish farms things were even worse with lice climbing to 34.49 lice per farmed salmon, and, after treatment in 2018, fell to only 24.62 after using SLICE, as in marginally effective and levels many times what it takes to kill a wild salmon fry. 

Here is the killer: 

"It is noteworthy that, in its previous production cycle (October 2015 through June, 2017), Steamer Point’s lice counts rose to five times the management threshold by September, 2016 and unaccountably, were allowed to continue to rise without any management action disclosed in the public record from that time until harvest was completed in June, 2017. Throughout the 2017 out migration, lice levels remained at 5 to 10 times the management threshold."

This, of course, is outrageous. Do remember that fish farms tell the story of how much they care for the environment and their fish and are subjugated the strictest laws in the world, and etc. 

I recall when I first heard this fiction. It was followed up in several other countries, so, while the laws of every country are different, according to Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grieg and so on, they have the strictest laws in Chile, Norway, Scotland and Canada all at the same time.

So why are the lice over 30 per farmed fish in the summer when fry are going by?

And Esperanza Inlet, a scant mile or two from Steamer Point, the situation is just as dire: 

"The situation is presently worse at Esperanza, where in July, 2018, counts averaged 17.3 and SLICE treatment was deferred until August, by which time lice levels were at 53.37. That treatment failed; though a regime of alternating in-feed and bath treatments administered between August and November brought the lice count down. It was rising again by December; also vulnerable to the lice load created by the Hecate farm. Lice were apparently left untreated from November through March, with the result that this farm entered the 2019 wild juvenile migration period with lice levels more than double the treatment threshold (7.74). The public record stops in March, with a note that “management action is planned”. Both harvest and bath treatments are referenced, giving rise to concern that Grieg intends leaving heavily infested fish in the water throughout an extended harvest, despite the migration window."

So lice are far in excess of what they should be, and farms are so close to one another that the lice from one affects the next farm. Take a look at Gillam Channel and Esperanza Inlet on a chart to see how close these are. And they are affecting a small town as pristine as they come, Zeballos. It is hard to believe that DFO wants these in the water.

And even some in DFO know the situation is not good. Here: "Dr. Ian Keith of DFO noted that Grieg’s own husbandry was aggravating the growing drug resistance. On October 12, 2017 he wrote to DFO’s Zac Waddington...

The signees to this letter, Living Oceans, Georgia Strait Alliance, David Suzuki Foundation, Watershed Watch Salmon Society and Pacific Coast Salmon Society, then point out that DFO has not put into place 'area-based management', so there is no coordination on farms in the same area. You probably remember that DFO minister Wilkinson spouts how pleased he is with his area-based management scheme... even though the only scheme seems to be him saying so.

So Grieg isn't doing a good job with its current farms, and wants another licence for Lutes-Creek, when it is only 1km away from its Esperanza lease, with lice floating between them, and the different age classes of fish receiving different amounts of SLICE, adding to the lice problem. Hmm. 

And they all have lice problems out of control, as they are too close and the lice have become resistant to SLICE. Incidentally, in case you did not know, lice become resistant to all chemicals used to kill them. It's quite simple, the ones that don't die are resistant and by reproducing produce a whole generation that don't die, as in are resistant. That is what resistance is. They don't die.

And each female produces a thousand progeny at each generation. And each fish farm has on average 600,000 farmed fish, and so, if a farm is at 30 female lice per fish, that means 30 X 600,000 X 1000 = 1.6 Billion lice per farm. And that is every time the female sheds eggs, which can be many times per year.

The several graphs on page 4 show the same pattern of lice excess at the same time of the summer in all these farms. Go look at it as the image cannot be brought into another document, like this one: https://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Lutes-Creek-Comments1.pdf.

As lice loads are the same, this means the farms are close enough to pass disease as well.

And what are the local river impacts? Well, pretty high: 

"Both the Zeballos and Little Zeballos Rivers support five species of salmon, at such low numbers that stock rebuilding may be jeopardized for all but chum. Espinosa Creek [the same]  but the most recent counts  found no sockeye, coho or Chinook and only 6 chum. Pink salmon survival in the area is tenuous, with observed spawning numbers in the single digits in some years; in2016, no pinks were observed. Sockeye, coho and Chinook number in the hundreds each; the chum in the low thousands but we note that these are hatchery-enhanced numbers. There are probably additional rivers and streams that support wild salmon in the Inlet, but these were the only relevant rivers for which spawning surveys could be located.6""

I would add that the Conuma River puts out mostly chinook salmon. The Gold, Burman and Leiner rivers, among others empty into Nootka Sound. All would have fry killed by fish farm lice, and the Gold steelhead run, the largest wild run on the island, has crashed.

"Any impact on wild salmon returning at such low numbers as cited above would have to be considered a population-level impact. If the impacts are similar to those observed in areas of Clayoquot during the outbreak of lice in 2018(40-96%)7 and in 2019(100%), or in the Broughton earlier in the year(90%)8, the consequences for survival of the runs in this area could be dire."

The population-level impact is the phrase DFO uses to distinguish taking action to protect the fish and not protect the fish. Do recall the Cohen recommendations for Fraser Sockeye, and that this summer the Fraser has had the lowest return in a century.

And regarding the 'pesticide use permit' for the area, the letter has this to say:


"The PUP for the use of hydrogen peroxide [Paramove 50] treatments in Hecate Channel explicitly covers only three farms. Unless Grieg intends to surrender the licence for one of its existing farms, this means they will not be able to treat Lutes Creek with bath treatments in the event that SLICE proves ineffective. With one farm of four left with no effective treatment options and the other three in such close proximity, bath treatments on the farms permitted to use it will be effective only in the short term, as lice generated at Lutes will resettle on treated fish in Hecate, Esperanza and Steamer."

The result of climate change and increased salinity in the past five years shortens the time for lice generations to be produced. And has been used as an excuse by the fish farmers for higher lice numbers. We don't really care about farmed fish, but it means a whole new practice is needed, like say, being on land when lice brood times shorten from 45 days to 8. 

"The Department’s response to both changing environmental conditions and drug resistance that have led to the recent outbreaks has been unacceptable. We have heard DFO staff say that the conditions of licence offer DFO no enforcement capability and yet we have also heard DFO state the conditions are unalterable."

So Grieg has no plan that works to kill lice, and DFO has no plan to prevent lice and the Miller/Di Cicco work on disease is not complete, and the BC minister's committee says unless there is First Nation buy in, no new farms, and the new DFO fish farm plan is too far out to be effective now.

So, let's put fish farms on land. The solution is so simple.

***

A post from Alex Morton on lice, and DFO issues with having a plan, post current on Aug 30, 2019:  https://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/.