Skuna Bay Lands Gullible Distributor in the USA - Buckhead Beef

You will recall that Skuna Bay -  that isn't in Skuna Bay, BC - killed 65 sea lions, drowning them in their nets, and then had to pay a $100,000 fine after it was convicted of killing them: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/09/skuna-bay-sells-farmed-salmon-to.html.

 

Then it sold its farmed fish as 'special' to a gullible US Open Tennis tournament that, tut, tut, did not do its homework. Here is the letter by lots of well-known environmentalists about Skuna Bay's non-sustainable fish farm fish, pointing out that its claims are untrue: http://wildsalmonrecipes.com/an-open-letter-to-skuna-bay-farmed-salmon-and-their-distributors/.

Here is what Skuna has done recently, landing a gullible Buckhead Beef distributor for distribution in the USA. When the customers find out the unsustainable nature of in-ocean fish farm fish, all the sentient sea lions killed to put salmon in their mouths,  it is highly unlikely they will buy it again, and too bad for Buckhead Beef.

See: http://www.seafoodnews.com/Story/1021263/Skuna-Bay-Salmon-Nears-National-Distribution-in-Deal-With-Atlantas-Buckhead-Beef.


Skuna Bay Salmon Nears National Distribution in Deal With Atlanta's Buckhead Beef

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [SeafoodNews] June 3, 2016
Skuna Bay has struck an agreement with Atlanta-based food purveyor Buckhead Beef that will expand distribution of its Vancouver Island Craft Raised Salmon to four additional markets in the US.

The deal will see Skuna Bay salmon make it to stores in Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. This brings the product close to complete national distribution now that it's available in 42 US states and 4 Canadian provinces...

**

You will notice that only 4 Canadian provinces will buy the stuff, while 87.5% of the southern 48 will do so, at the moment. But not for long. As soon as the Americans, who want ethical food in their mouths find out, they will stop buying Skuna Bay unsustainable, non-organic, sea-lion-killing salmon soon.

***

And today, June 15, 2016, Grieg Seafood has been shown offloading dead farmed fish in large quantities on May 31. I wonder if these are Skuna Bay fish. Mmm. And of course Skuna Bay and these fish are all in Nootka Sound. I don't think Americans will want to eat these: https://www.facebook.com/alexandra.morton.1671/activity/1830092097219343.

Text: "May 31: caught Grieg Seafood pumping dead farmed salmon into dumpsters loaded on a landing barge near Gold River. This is not the normal way salmon farmers remove their morts. This die-off is happening simultaneously with a die-off near Tofino. This farm experienced a die-off in 2014 and these are the next generation of salmon in these pens. With all these dead fish I have to wonder - what are they dying of, who is checking on these fish and is salmon farming even viable in BC? Are we risking our wild salmon to an industry which nature has turned against? ‪#‎wildsalmon‬ @clayoquotaction"

And Skuna Bay landed another gullible distributor, and a big one: Sysco's Southwest Seafood Purveyor Louisiana Foods: http://www.seafoodnews.com/Story/1018043/Skuna-Bay-Closes-Salmon-Distribution-Deal-with-Syscos-Southwest-Seafood-Purveyor-Louisiana-Foods.

Fish Farm Diseases Caught by Wild Salmon - IHN, 2001 to 2003

Here is a report that should be read: http://www.marineharvest.ca/globalassets/canada/news-pdf/ihnv_report_2003.pdf. Sonja Saksida wrote the paper and has been employed by Norwegian fish farm companies many times over the years. This is how issues of conflict of interest begin.

The way to understand conflicts, you Google the papers of the person of interest, copy the names and then look up their publications. You will find that those who are connected with fish farms end up doing work that is positive to them, while the mainstream scientists are not. How big an influence you ask? Well, Marine Harvest has 90 research projects going at the present time to solve the issue of lice being unkillable, largely because the cocktail of chemicals don't work, in time. See the post two below this one and it tells you the chemicals: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/cancer-causing-chemicals-in-farmed.html.

You will note in the acknowledgements to the Saksida paper that many levels of government were also involved. As you will recall, the most important recommendation in the Cohen report was for DFO to be relieved of the conflict of interest in supporting fish farms and wild salmon at the same time, and for it to just get on with saving wild salmon. The Harper government did not do this. The Trudeau government has not done it either.

One of the real disappointing things in Norwegian fish farms is that in Norway, they spend a very long time criticizing anyone who complains about fish farms, and this has migrated to wherever in the world fish farms go. I will do a post comparing Norway and BC shortly, and you should buy from Glydendal publishers in Norway an e-book of Kjersti Sandvik's book Under the Surface that systematically works through many problems in Norway. Most follow them around the world. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/under-surface-kjersti-sandvik-gyldendal.html.

The Saksida report details the IHN epidemic in farmed fish in BC in 2001 - 2003. Some 12 million farmed salmon caught the disease and died. It ravaged one fish farm after another, many on Vancouver Island, where the capital of BC, Victoria, is located. The premier, Christy Clark, has not gotten fish farms out of the water either.

I will have more to say on this, and for now, see the Table of Contents:

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements                                                                     2

Introduction                                                                                 3

IHN 2001-2003                                                                            5

What is the case definition for IHN in Atlantic salmon?               5

What was the scope (i.e. how many farms were

affected) of the recent epizootic?                                                5

What was the initial source of the infection?                               5

What does the mortality curve associated with an IHN

case look like?                                                                             6

What were the cumulative mortality rates associated 

with the cases of IHN?                                                                 6

Summary of IHN cases during the 2001-2003 outbreak              7

IHN cases in Area1                                                                      7

IHN cases in Area2                                                                      8

IHN cases in Area3                                                                      9

IHN cases in Area4                                                                      9

IHN cases in Area5                                                                    10

What changes  were made at the sites afteran IHN 

diagnosis was made?                                                                  11

What is the status of IHN as of December 2003?                       11

Risk Factors and their management                                           12

Source of Infection                                                                      12

Freshwater introduction or vertical transmission                         12

Horizontal transmission in seawater                                           13

A/ Wild sockeye salmon                                                              13

B/ Waterborne transmission                                                        15

C/ Other fish species that can carry IHNV                                   17

D/ Movement of farmed salmon in and between areas               19

E/ Shared equipment and common boat traffic                            20

F/ Harvest by-products from IHNV infected populations              22

Other Risk Factors                                                                       24

Lag time between suspicion and confirmation of an infection      24

Stress in the Atlantic salmon                                                        25

Lack of an effective IHNV vaccine                                                26

Research Needs                                                                           27

Summary                                                                                      27

Figures and Tables                                                                       29

References                                                                                   36

Here are the Acknowledgements: 

"I would like to thank the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food (BCMAFF) and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) for funding the study. I would also like to thank all the companies (Atlantic salmon producers and suppliers) who participated in the study. They were all extremely cooperative and very willing to spend a considerable amount of time helping me collectand validate the information presented in this document. I would like to thank the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the Pacific Salmon Commission, Environment Canada and the District of Campbell River forbeing so prompt in providing me with information.

I would finally and especially like to thank Paula Galloway, Darlene Hanson, Gary Robinson, Garth Traxler and Dr. Craig Stephen for their assistance in editing the document. Their input was invaluable and, I know, increased the quality of the final product."  

Go look them up. Government is in a conflict of interest here and the fish farms paid for them, also a conflict of interest.

Brief Summary

During the outbreak of IHN, 36 fish farms were infected. Smaller fish caught IHN at 70% while larger fish, over 2 kg, were infected at 40%. Take a look at Fig 9 as it shows the prevailing currents in the area north of Campbell River where sockeye salmon smolts travel out to the ocean. Note the sections on viral outbreak being spread to nearby farms, starting on page 7, one of the prime causes appears to be wellboats transporting smolts close to infected sites, particularly through the dense maze of channels north of Campbell River.

See Figure 8 for Vancouver Island infections, apparently Clayoquot Sound. 10 farms were infected only one was not infected. BC also had IHN infections from 1992 to 1996. Origins of infection could be wild salmon returning [those fish that Kristi Miller's work showed had a high viral signatures, however, 600,000 to 1 million farmed fish are by definition stressed and leach out 56 billion viral particles per hour once infected, infecting many sites in its path].

Page 15 quote on transmission: "If the assumption is made that the east coast Vancouver Island isolate originated in Area 1, then waterborne exposure of the smolts, in Areas 2 and 3, to IHNV could have occurred as they were being live hauled through Area 1. In addition, a low titre exposure to the virus may explain why the onset of disease in the population did not appear until several weeks after the last group of smolts had been entered.
 

The presence of an IHN positive population, undergoing an epizootic, could provide a continuous reservoir of virus not only for the infected site itself but also to the 16 surrounding area (i.e. downstream)."

See the recommendations on non-movement of farmed salmon stock (p 19), use of common equipment, wellboats, fallowing and etc. on 16-17 and succeeding pages.  

This report makes no mention that 12 million farmed fish were lost, nor does it mention how much taxpayer money, if any, the federal government paid for diseased dead fish. Nor does it estimate how many wild salmonids were killed by IHN.

Also, if you check the papers sited, you will find that Michael Kent is mentioned. He did work on SLV while working for DFO. He left DFO and recanted his work on the Cohen stand - one of four scientists who made the same disappointing choice. It has to be asked: what does one do with papers from recanted work, and shouldn't all wages and benefits paid to Kent for this work be paid back to the Canadian taxpayer?

KEY Document: Aboriginals of the World Say No to Fish Farms, Updated Feb 11, 2016

The joining of aboriginal peoples from around the world against in-ocean fish farms has begun. This is another watershed moment just as the tipping point that happened in 2015 with the Norwegian government change in licence policy. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/12/key-document-tipping-point-goodbye-in.html.

Clayoquot Sound, BC, is a UNESCO Biosphere it is that special. Why then has Christy Clark, BC Premier, and Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada allowed some 20 fish farm sites, most - 15 - owned by the Norwegian-style firm Cermaq, to remain stationed here?

As the Cohen Commission explained in its 1200 page tome into the collapse of the 2009 Fraser River sockeye runs, the government needs to take the conflict of DFO supporting fish farms out of their hands and for DFO to get on with saving wild salmon.

There are only 501 wild chinook salmon left in Clayoquot Sound, and the Kennedy Lake sockeye run collapsed in the 1990s from commercial-fishing. In the presence of 20 fish farms, that when they have diseases, like IPN or IHN, are shedding 56 billion virus particles per hour, which in 12 hours at a 2 knot tide, spread to 24 nautical miles, the run has never come back.

Look at the location of the Clayoquot Sound fish farms below and it's pretty easy to understand why no wild salmon could dodge the disease in its waters.

The Clayoquot Action group is meeting with the Norwegian Sami in February 2016 and taking its text to lay before the Norwegian government to get fish farms out of the ocean. They should get a friendly hearing because the Norwegian government is so fed up with the environmental damage of fish farms that it is handing out free on-land licences to get Marine Harvest, Cermaq, Grieg Seafood and the rest out of the ocean and set up on land. This is a $9- to $12-million subsidy, representing the foregone in-ocean auction price of a licence.

Look at the itinerary below the graphic. I will post more on this important subject.

The Huffington Post sums up what British Columbians feel about fish farms: “While marches in the rest of the world largely targeted the fossil fuel industry, in BC, salmon farming is viewed as our own version of the tar sands, as despised as big oil.”

Hmm: As despised as big oil. I think that says it all about how British Columbians feel about in-ocean fish farms. Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood are just watching the world tell them to get out of the ocean and set up on land. And the consumers are paying attention, a long term issue if the fish farms can ever get anyone back. And Justin Trudeau thought that we were angry about the Northern Gateway oil pipeline. Sorry to tell him that just ain't so. Christy Clark needs to pay attention. She thought LNG was a big issue. 

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jeff-matthews/bc-salmon-farming_b_8695522.html?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=4a3d3d0d35-Salmon_News_Dec_2_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-4a3d3d0d35-166907249.

Update Feb 10, 2016. Here is the petition document, and text that was presented to the Norwegian King by the aboriginals of the world, to get fish farms out of the oceans they use as free open sewers: https://www.change.org/p/to-the-citizens-of-norway-divest-from-dirty-salmon/u/15385858?recruiter=11533166&utm_source=share_update&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=facebook_link. 

Canadian Wild Salmon Delegation Itinerary

Oslo: January 28

Bergen: January 30-February 4
Public presentation: Wednesday February 3 / 1900 / More info

Alta: February 6-10
Public presentation: Monday Feb 8 / 1000-1130 / More info

Oslo: February 11-12
Public presentation: Thursday February 11 / 1900 / More info

//Download Itinerary PDF//

Update Feb 11, 2016. Here is an article in a Norwegian paper about the trip of the BC aboriginals to Norway to contact the Sami people and lay documents at the feet of Cermaq and the Norwegian government to get fish farms out of the world's oceans and particularly in BC. Do read this article, that points out that our coastal rainforest is dependent on salmon carcasses for nitrogen and carbon (in a previous post, I referenced the salmon carbon amount in cedar trees as 14%): https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.altaposten.no/meninger/2016/02/08/En-b%C3%B8nn-fra-Canada-12134055.ece&edit-text=&act=url&utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=820e44b091-Salmon_News_Feb_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-820e44b091-166907249.

Fish Farm Sewage - More than the Entire Human Population of Norway, Updated Jan 17, 2017

The sewage on the bottom of the ocean in Norway from fish farms is the equivalent of 17 million people: http://www.nrk.no/trondelag/far-torsk-som-har-beitet-pa-avforing-1.12638144.

As the population of Norway is only 8 Million people, that means fish farms put more sewage on the bottom of the ocean than 213% of the people in Norway, more than twice as much.

Looked at another way, Norway's human population would have to grow 9 million people more to equal the sewage under the fish farms.

But there is another way of looking at this. Sewage includes all the sewage released into the water column plus the remainder that ends up on the bottom. A way to calculate a conservative estimate is, at the accepted equivalent of 10 fish equal the sewage of 1 human, a conservative 1000 farms, and a conservative 500,000 fish per farm. The calculation is: 1000 X 500,000/10 = 50,000,000 humans.

In other words, the conservative estimate of the total sewage load from all the fish farms in Norway, is the equivalent of 50 million people, some 625% more than there are right now.

Note the article references 'researchers' who are not concerned. My response is: are they conflicted with fish farms? The fishermen say that fish eat the sewage and are so foul they would not eat them, or catch them to sell at market to humans.

Little wonder why those citizens who have to live with fish farms overwhelmingly reject them. You will recall the 110,000 British Columbians who signed a petition to stop expansion of fish farms in BC and get the farms out of the water. See: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2015/05/on-may-8-2010-i-helped-lead-the-final-steps-of-the-get-out-migration-a-6-day-walk-down-vancouver-island-to-victoria-th.html.

KEY Document - Eliminating Fish Farms from Our Pristine Oceans, Now

Some milestone information has fallen into place regarding getting fish farms out of our pristine ocean in BC:

1. The public overwhelmingly rejects in-ocean fish farms.

In BC more than 110,000 people have signed a petition to get fish farms out of the ocean: See: https://www.change.org/p/restore-wild-salmon-ban-salmon-feedlots-in-bc.

2. There are more than 100 on-land fish farm systems operating around the world, comprising more than 10,000 actual fish farms on land.

Hence, there is no more reason for in-ocean fish farms to damage our pristine oceans that they use as free, open sewers. The sewage cost in BC, I estimate at $10.4 Billion. The public doesn't want to pay.

See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2012/01/key-document-34-mostly-on-land-closed.html.

3. The fish seafood industry is a boom bust, multi-billion dollar, unsustainable form of business, characterized by cartel formation, disease propagation, many illegal activities and, most importantly, sewage production.

Cruise this list of more than 175 problems that I have put together in less than 3 months. These are news stories that appear in the global press every day. I think you will be taken aback by this list. I am.

See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2015/07/key-document-fish-farm-news-bites.html.

Now:

Okay, politicians, where is the Beef on getting fish farms out of the ocean and put on land, or they can go back to Norway? After all, there are only 800 actual jobs in the BC industry, and only a $61.9 Million contribution to the BC economy, while sport, commercial and processing are 10 times larger at over $600 Million contribution to GPP.

Of the following list only Elizabeth May has a policy to get fish farms out of the ocean. Shame on the rest of the politicians:

Christy Clark, Premier of BC, Canada
Stephen Harper, federal Conservative leader.
Thomas Mulcair, federal NDP leader
Justin Trudeau, federal Liberal leader.
Elizabeth May, federal Green Party leader.

BC Residents Don't Vote Conservative - No to Stephen Harper and Marine Harvest, Cermaq and Grieg Seafood

British Columbia residents voted in high numbers against fish farms, more than 100,000 signing a petition to stop expansion, and to get fish farms out of out pristine ocean. See: https://www.change.org/p/restore-wild-salmon-ban-salmon-feedlots-in-bc.

The Conservatives, the Harper Government, did the opposite of what British Columbians want: they issued four more sites to fish farms in BC; they weakened the already weakened laws by bringing in new fish farm regs (See: my article on the recent Blacklock article: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1880129387856188740#editor/target=post;postID=3089477178877178483;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=6;src=postname; and they issued licences in BC for 9 years.

All of these actions are against what British Columbian voters want: we want DFO and the government to get on with saving wild Pacific salmon, and protecting the environment by putting fish farms on land.

Of the other federal parties, the Green Party has a specific policy against fish farms and will get them out of the water immediately after the election. See: https://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/vision-green/economy/fisheries.

Please note that as of September 1, 2015, neither the Liberals nor NDP have stated policies to eliminate fish farms from BC waters. Those who support wild salmon, do not vote Liberal nor NDP.

In a province with 99.8% of all the wild salmon in Canada - some 73 million before fisheries in saltwater - salmon are an important issue, providing along with freshwater fishing $2.52 Billion, and with another $200 Million if the Georgia Strait chinook and coho stocks are brought back. In other words, $2.72 Billion. See my Pacific Salmon Foundation Salmon Steward editorial: http://onfishingdcreid.blogspot.ca/2015/05/pacific-salmon-foundation-psf-editorial.html. This post gives you links to all the references I used to derive these figures.

By comparison, fish farms, provide only $469 M revenue, or only 17 percent of what we receive from BC wild fish. Their sewage is a $10.4 Billion cost to BC taxpayers and voters. The Liberals and NDP need to get out in front of this issue by publicly stating policy to get fish farms out of the oceans.