Article by John Ibbitson in the Globe and Mail: PM announces probe into B.C. salmon stocks

Excerpt: "The federal government has been repeatedly criticized for its management of offshore resources. Federal mismanagement contributed to the collapse of Atlantic Canada's cod fishery in the 1990s, which has yet to recover.

"Mr. Harper said details of the probe will be announced Friday by Trade Minister Stockwell Day, who is lead minister for the region."

Damien Gillis on the CFUN Talk 1410 Dave Brindle Show: click here to listen (MP3)

Op-ed piece by Damien Gillis in the Campbell River Courier-Islander: It's time to say enough is enough 

Excerpt: "It was to my horror that I read Mary Ellen Walling's callous take on the Chilean Crisis I had just witnessed. Walling told the Vancouver Sun: 'Prices are up 10 to 15 per cent over the past six months because of the lack of product in the marketplace...It's good for the B.C. industry because we've got good, solid prices moving forward...There's a significant lack of Chilean product in the U.S. market. It's a great opportunity [for B.C. salmon farmers], but we can't take advantage of it. B.C. is home to a range of anti-salmon-farming groups. [Their] campaign has delayed opportunities for the industry to expand.'

"Having witnessed firsthand the plight of the Chilean people and environment, this kind of statement is sheerly appalling in its ignorance and selfishness."

View the photo essay by Damien Gillis from his recent tour of the environmental and socio-economic devastation the Chilean salmon farming industry.

The Hon. Gail Shea,
Minister, Fisheries and Oceans,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Canada.

Dear Ms. Shea,

Re: DFO’s  poor record for wild salmon protection as opposed to un-restrained support  for salmon farming in B.C.

This is the perspective of two of us who have a combined experience of over 85 years in biology and oceanography – most of this time with DFO. We mention this experience because we believe that it qualifies us, quite well, to comment. We are not alone in the views we hold about the following:

A) DFO – Abandoned Mandate

Historically, we recall times when DFO stood out clearly on environmental issues. These included effective input in hearings on marine oil exploration, research and management initiatives on estuarine fish habitat, research and results application in connection with coastal logging, and strong involvement in the Site C dam proposal.

As opposed to this, DFO’s performance during the past 25 years or so, is lamentable.  Considering Pacific salmon protection the following record is particularly disappointing:

1) ‘Rolling over and playing dead’ in connection with the Alcan and Nechako situation,

2) Sitting quietly by while fish-bearing streams are pre-empted for private power development in run-of-the-river projects,

3) Condoning massive gravel removal in salmon habitat in the lower Fraser River, and

4) Playing hand-maiden to the aquaculture industry.

In regard to aquaculture in coastal B.C., we are deeply concerned about the policy direction and the inadequacy of federal government science. We are concerned not only because the high profile conflict in the Broughton Archipelago area is unresolved, but because the industry apparently wishes to expand beyond where it now extensively operates.

Many knowledgeable people in universities and the public have written extensively about this issue. However, after having seen pictures of DFO’s aquaculture booth at a trade show in Norway, and after hearing your comments to Damien Gillis, we feel obliged to try to help those who would protect wild salmon. We may not understand what has caused the near collapse of the Fraser River sockeye salmon run this year. However, the specter of you at an aquaculture trade show booth in Norway while the Fraser River sockeye run ‘melts down’, has symbolism of DFO’s priority and policy that troubles us.

B) Policy Direction

The behavior of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, (DFO) is at odds with the department’s own precautionary principle. The department behaves more like an aquaculture promotion organization than a responsibly involved fisheries research and management agency.

Several years ago the Government of Canada established the “precautionary principle” in:  A Framework for the Application of Precaution in Science-based Decision Making  About Risk. (Date modified: 2003-07-25). In the case of the salmon aquaculture business, this policy seems to be ‘far back in the shadows’.

In the salmon net-pen farming industry, particularly in areas such as the Broughton Archipelago, risks and impacts have been documented by research workers outside of DFO. In this situation they show that a “credible case that a risk of serious or irreversible harm exists”.  We have copies of six refereed publications that support such concern. Notwithstanding the precautionary policy aspect and independent, published/refereed research that indicates risk, DFO supports expansion of the industry. Your department is failing in its mandate in three ways:

1) It does not meet the requirements of its own ‘precautionary principle’

2) It straddles two objectives:

a) Managing and protecting wild salmon and,
b) Supporting aquaculture. By the way they are being met, these objectives are in conflict.

3) While being quick to criticize outside research, DFO’s own research provides a weak and fragmentary foundation for management of aquaculture in B.C. (See “Sustainable Aquaculture Research in BC: DFO Publications Related to Fish health and Salmon Aquaculture").

This failure is even more worrisome given that the aquaculture industry is demanding that it be allowed to move further north along the B.C. coast. If it is not allowed to ‘go north’ then it calls for permission to ‘grow bigger’ where it is. Who calls the tune here?

C) Inadequacy of DFO Science

The DFO has not carried out adequate research to permit a scientifically legitimate management role in the salmon farming industry (see “Sustainable Aquaculture  Research….. Publications … 2003 -2007” above) This list may not be up to date, however, it covers the time period in, or before which, research,  relevant to aquaculture impacts and policy formulation, should have been carried out.

The list of publications includes very few papers that bear directly on the impacts, or potential impacts, of Atlantic salmon net-pens culture on juvenile pink salmon in critical areas such as the Broughton Archipelago. Of 53 titles listed, only five appear to be directly, or partly, relevant to impacts on juvenile pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago. We are aware that there is more government and non-government research, being planned or carried out now. This is desirable. However, it is unfortunate that this increased effort was not made before the industry expansion was allowed to occur.  With the history of land use conflicts that lies behind us, it is most unfortunate that we still ‘turn business loose’, and then after the fact, try to understand impacts and clean up the problems.

If the Government of Canada, through DFO, continues to require a better assessment of connection between salmon farms impacts and wild salmon population responses in areas such as the Broughton Archipelago, they must engage in ecosystem-scale research that meets or exceeds the standards that they require of others, and that:

1) Extends over a period of time that would permit analysis of the environmental variables that are considered to confound the effects of sea lice,

2) Is enough in control of the experimental situation to permit operation and closure of net pens to provide sound experimental design, and

3) That has funding and people that are independent of political or corporate control.

D) Wild Salmon – Gift of Nature

Salmon culture may now out-produce wild fish catches if simply measured in tons. However, these ‘tons’ come with a spectrum of environmental costs. Furthermore there are important elements beyond such ‘tonnage counting’ in the salmon farming debate.

Culture of farmed fish requires energy, fish food originating in other parts of the world, and it takes space that is useful for other sectors of society. Salmon farms in some locations produce layers of rotting waste below them. We know someone very well who has worked in the salmon farming business – this individual has seen this first hand. Most of the public has not seen it. If the jobs that salmon farming creates are, in the end, offset by loss of jobs involving wild salmon fisheries, their value may be a bitter illusion.

Production of wild salmon does not require all of the ‘front end’ costs associated with food production, energy consumption, freshwater diversion, … etc; that occur in salmon farming. It does, however, require two things: first that we protect their environments, and second that we have the good sense to avoid over-exploiting them. There is an additional benefit to doing these things. The efforts that we make to sustain wild salmon and their habitats also help to support an array of other wildlife. This, plus the environment itself, constitute a positive legacy, beyond the fish, for future generations. Bays full of net-pen farms with material rotting on the sea floor and “Keep Out” signs do not provide such a legacy.

It is clear that wild salmon face a daunting array of man-made environmental challenges, including: other land uses, climate change, forest loss, water abstraction, and ocean condition changes that we do not understand well. This given, your government should protect them as well as possible for as long as possible. This can be done. However, it requires a more sincere concern for wild fish than is evident to date on the part of DFO. In the long term, it requires a vision on the part of elected people and senior bureaucrats that goes beyond winning 2-4 year electoral popularity contests and serving the apparently biggest “business” on the block.

In a long term ecological context, both society and governments must soon come to the realization that human populations and activities must come into some environmentally sensible balance with the limited space and resources of the land.  Humanity will not get to this state of realization and behavior with growth-driven business as its moral and intellectual flagship.

The salmon farming industry and how it is managed is an important part of our future. In this regard, the public is justified in expecting better than has been given. If nothing else, we would ask that your department carry out research that is independent, and that it begin to honor, fully, its responsibility for wild salmon protection in a manner that is above politics and short-term gain.

Sincerely yours,

G. Hartman Ph.D.
C. McAllister Ph.D.

A letter to Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, published here by request.

It is clear I have failed to communicate the scope of the problems we, on the coast of British Columbia, are facing with the fish farming industry. Your reply does not address the relentless state of conflict between fish farmers and many businesses and communities, as a result of the salmon farms being placed on the migration routes of BC's most valuable wild salmon stocks.

Whatever else has harmed, or still is harming wild salmon, it is certain that the annual sea lice epidemics associated with salmon farms worldwide, are contributing substantively to the negative impacts on an extremely valuable public resource. The people of BC are being asked to accept reduced opportunities on our wild salmon, simply to accommodate a fish farm industry that refuses to pay the additional cost of building walls around their livestock.

It seems unrealistic for you to write that aquaculture operations are subject to the Fisheries Act when:

1. They have unlicensed packers moving fish over Canadian waters.

2. They use grow lights strictly prohibited by the Fisheries Act that are attracting wild fish into pens of 100,000's carnivorous fish.

3. There are no records on fish farm by-catch of highly valuable Pacific species such as herring, juvenile salmon, black cod, etc.

4. Fish farmers widely use a drug that is not approved for use in Canadian waters and they never post warnings that could protect the public from this toxic drug.

In early 2008, some 340,000 cubic metres of prime gravel was scalped from the top of a large bar in the lower Fraser River near Chilliwack. All this was sanctioned by the federal and provincial governments under the pretext of flood control. But qualified hydrologists who reviewed the largest single Fraser River gravel removal in history found no evidence of the sort. One of government’s own consultants concluded that “It does not appear that large scale gravel removals...are effective in lowering the flood profile.” Another even claimed government was deliberately misleading the public.

Anglers, conservationists, and others who cared about the Fraser were up in arms. “Flood control” measures were said to be nothing more than “gravel grabs” done at the expense of valuable fish habitat. Science and common sense suggested that some of the most productive chinook salmon habitat left on Earth had been destroyed, along with a vast stretch of prime pink salmon spawning gravel. Concerns were also raised over threatened sturgeon.

A moratorium in place since the late 1990s to protect Fraser River salmon and sturgeon habitat was lifted by the provincial government early this decade. Liberal environment minister Barry Penner and ex-solicitor general John Les both campaigned for the lifting of the moratorium, and shortly after, the province and Fisheries and Oceans Canada signed a five-year deal authorizing the removal of massive quantities of gravel, with more than 420,000 cubic metres up for grabs in 2009 alone.

None of this bodes well for the future of the lower Fraser River, one of the world’s last great salmon rivers. Perhaps one day when humans look back on how we mistreated our once-bountiful salmon resource, the name “Spring Bar” will resonate sombrely with those wondering how we could have allowed the squandering of so much with so little resistance.

But Spring Bar is sadly just one blotch in a much tarnished tapestry of neglect, abuse, and betrayal of wild salmon and public interest. When it comes to our rivers, we are currently engaged in the greatest fire sale in history. Private power corporations have staked claim to the water flowing in more than 700 rivers and creeks, and mere citizens are told to be quiet and be happy because this is all good for them. Government and industry PR teams tout the benefits of “green hydro” projects and actively downplay the impacts of such developments.

In truth, citizens have been all but shut out of decisions on the merits of privatizing and developing our rivers, including the massive project proposed for the Bute Inlet, where Plutonic Power hopes to divert water from 17 rivers and build a gigantic web of roads, pipes, and transmission lines. The resulting public outcry and show of concern has thus far prompted little deviation from business as usual. Projects are still reviewed individually, under narrow terms of reference, and with no consideration of cumulative impacts or of the other values that British Columbians associate with rivers and wild places.

And if the assault on freshwater habitat weren’t enough, consider the plight of our salmon in marine waters, where both the federal and provincial governments continue to champion the growth of industrial aquaculture. The public controversy over the impacts of aquaculture has intensified since 2002 when the provincial Liberals lifted a seven-year moratorium on fish-farm expansion—also the same year in which Broughton pink salmon collapsed by 97 percent. Stories of sea-lice impacts on juvenile wild salmon and collapsing pink salmon stocks are common media fodder. These now-familiar yet always-painful stories serve to reinforce concerns of myopic and destructive government policies, but calls for funds to transition the industry go unheeded.

Back on land, a Forest Practices Board study of 1,110 road crossings over fish streams in 19 B.C. watersheds finds that less than half of the crossings offer salmon safe passage. Still, industry pressures government to “modernize” laws to make it easier to develop in and near salmon habitat. Management of our forests is dealt a serious blow with the cutting of 800 jobs from the Ministry of Forests—nearly half in enforcement and compliance—during the first Liberal mandate, and the relentless gutting of environmental enforcement in favour of industry-led “results based” self-regulation.

This all begs the questions: Why is our wild salmon heritage treated with seeming contempt by government? And can we do anything to elevate the level of care and concern, before it is too late? Programs like the federal Wild Salmon Policy and the provincial Living Water Smart program may offer hope, but only if adequately resourced and mandated. Nongovernmental organizations, weary of years of inaction and damage, are also trying to work with industry to reduce sea-lice impacts on baby salmon now making their way past salmon farms. Such offerings may not be enough, though, given the human record, including a well-documented history of what one scientist sadly terms “resource management pathology”.

Our wild salmon resource, while much abused, remains a remarkable world treasure. If we don’t wish to see it squandered, we will all need to become more engaged in saving it. After all, it is people, not salmon, that give governments a mandate.

Craig Orr is the executive director of Watershed Watch Salmon Society

This article was published in the Georgia Straight

Article by Mark Hume in the Globe and Mail: Fisheries ignored 500 names. Can it ignore 5,000?

Excerpt: "Mr. [Michael] Price said juvenile sockeye can follow three routes as they migrate through Georgia Strait on the outward leg of their journey to the Gulf of Alaska.

"'But all these routes converge before the Broughton Archipelago [at the north end of Georgia Strait] where there are a dozen farms,' he said.

"'It's clear that no fish can make this journey without encountering a farm.'

"Mr. Price said studies have shown that one to three lice can kill a juvenile pink salmon, so it's fair to assume sockeye are dying as well.

"Could this help explain the collapse of Fraser River sockeye stocks?

"Some people will no doubt find this an alarming possibility."

Article by Duncan Speight in westcoaster.ca: Regulate Fish Farms Now, Say Fishermen

Excerpt: "More than 500 fishermen have signed an open letter to the federal Minister of Fisheries, calling for immediate new restrictions on B.C.’s fish farming industry in the wake of a recent court decision that says Ottawa – not Victoria – should regulate aquaculture."

Article by Colleen Kimmett in The Tyee: Fish farms floating in regulatory void

Excerpt: "Last month the Supreme Court of B.C. ruled that salmon aquaculture operations were not farms at all but public fisheries, and should fall under the jurisdiction of the feds, not the province. Justice Christopher Hinkson gave the two governments one year to make the switch.

"But in the meantime, these fisheries formerly known as fish farms are operating in a regulatory void that allows them to continue to threaten wild salmon stocks, said biologist Alexandra Morton."

Vancouver, BC - Today BC Supreme Court ruled that the BC government does not have the right to regulate salmon farms - the BC regulation of fish farms has become unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid.  The fish inside the farm are now considered a fishery, not agriculture and thus the federal government has exclusive right to regulation. The court suspended the ruling for a period of 12 months to allow the federal government to bring in proper legislation.

On September 29 - October 3, 2008, the case Alexandra Morton et al vs the A.G. of British Columbia and Marine Harvest Canada, Vancouver Registry, No. S083198 was argued in BC Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Hinkson. Filed under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSBC, c. 241 the Petitioners sought a declaration that the statutory provisions of British Columbia's Aquaculture Regulatory Regime - sections 13(5) and 26(2)(a) of the Fisheries Act (B.C.) - be declared unconstitutional and of no force or effect by virtue of section 52 of the Constitution, which states that the regulation of Canada's fisheries is under the sole jurisdiction of the Federal Crown and cannot be delegated to the provinces.

When salmon farming arrived on this coast very little was know about it, today know much, much more.  Just last week the provincially funded Pacific Salmon Forum called for restructioning of the fish farm regulatory regime now we have the opportunity to do something that makes sense.

The response from Alexandra Morton, lead petitioner in the case, is one of relief and joy.  "Finally, the government agency in charge of fish farms is mandated to put wild salmon first. This has come none too soon as provincial management of fish farms is devastating many coastal communities."

"Because the province is not responsible for the oceans, the impact of fish farms on the oceans became nobody's business and this is how we got into this mess," explains Morton.

"The B.C. salmon farming industry is largely foreign and facing severe global economic and disease problems," says Morton. "What makes countries wealthy is their resources and wild salmon are an extremely valuable fishery to the benefit of the BC economy."

"I would like to thank my lawyer, Greg McDade, the hundreds of people who supported this via www.adopt-a-fry.org", says Morton, "West Coast Environmental Law and many others for their help. There is an enormous amount of work ahead, but this court has illuminated a path though the chaos. The war in the water should be over. Our wild salmon are down but they are not out!"

Story by Robert Barron in the Nanaimo Daily News: First Nation sues province over impact of Broughton fish farms

Excerpt: "The [Broughton Archipelago] is within the Guilford Island First Nation's traditional territory and it has deep concerns about the impacts to the environment, particularly on the wild salmon stocks in the area, from the 29 open net fish farms that are authorized by the province to operate there."

Story from the Canadian Press: Salmon farming spawns aboriginal class-action suit against B.C. government

Jennifer Lash, executive director of the Living Oceans Society: "The issue here is that the First Nations here and in other regions of B.C. are feeling a huge amount of impact from the aquaculture industry, the salmon farming industry, on their communities. They are feeling that all the work that they've been trying to do to communicate their concerns to the federal and provincial governments, they're not getting anywhere."

A letter to the editor published in westcoaster.ca:

The next generation of wild salmon is in our rivers.

Their black eyes are reacting to light even as the fish remain tightly curled within their eggs.

The cold weather has slowed their development so they will enter the ocean during rich nutritious blooms of planktonic food.

The snowpack means cool water will be metered out into the rivers during the spring and summer.

Nature has given the salmon what they need to thrive. Now it is our turn.

Broughton, Clayoquot and the Fraser River salmon stocks are reaching critically low levels. Every time farm fish are removed from wild migration routes, wild salmon bounce back incredibly (Beamish et al 2006, Viner River 2008).

Our salmon are going to need every bit of genetic diversity we can allow them to survive the coming changes to our planet.

We should be banking wild DNA by building the runs right now during this wet, cool regime of La Niña.
Fish farms do not belong on wild salmon migration routes. There is enough science and enough experience to make this very clear.

Because we can depend on Premier Campbell to do the right thing if this becomes an issue to his re-election he needs to know how people feel about his current fish farm policy.

Because he is hesitant to inconvenience the Norwegian giants, Cermaq and Marine Harvest, Campbell needs to hear our message tens of thousands of times.
Thousands of paper salmon postcards have now been sent to the premier demanding removal of fish farms from wild salmon migration routes.

One woman calls her kitchen a paper salmon hatchery, a school in England is cutting and sending fish.

A couple deep in Knight’s Inlet have sent their fish out by sea plane, a woman in the market told me she released 120 into the postal system.

One school of paper salmon was thrown in the trash only to be rescued by the cleaning crew and sent on their way.

Premier Campbell has not responded yet and so like the wild pink salmon, when they reach a dead end, let’s redirect this migration.

New schools of salmon are now being sent to Campbell’s Victoria address, asking the premier why he would risk wild salmon?

Premiers are supposed to answer questions.