Category Archives: Oceans

Alexandra Morton Nets Two Academic Honours, Forces Farmed Salmon Recall

October 24, 2012Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAlexandra Morton, Aquaculture, SalmonDamien Gillis

It’s been a busy couple of weeks for salmon biologist and anti-fish farm activist Alexandra Morton. In between receiving two prestigious academic honours on opposite sides of the country, she found the time to drop by a few Sobeys grocery stores in Halifax, discover clumps of sea lice on the farmed salmon they were selling and create a national media story that prompted the retailer to yank all the whole farmed salmon from their maritime stores. All in a week’s work for the indefatigable defender of wild salmon.

In Halifax, Morton was honoured last week with the invitation to deliver the annual Ransom A. Myers Lecture in Science and Society – named for the late DFO scientist who predicted the collapse of the east coast cod and resigned from the department when his bosses attempted to silence him. Each year the university invites one similarly talented and independent minded scientist to speak to their issue of concern. Morton’s presentation on the discovery of several catastrophic viruses in BC’s farmed and wild salmon was delivered to a packed house of 400 academics and produced the only standing ovation in the history of the five year program.

Morton and her small team of research assistants made use of their trip to the east coast to meet with biologists, conservation groups and fishermen to learn about the impacts of the open net pen salmon farming industry on their marine environment. She spoke with a number of lobster fishermen, for instance, who have had to abandon their livelihoods due to the crash in their fishery which they connect to the arrival of salmon aquaculture operations. Chemicals used to treat sea lice on the farmed fish are also lethal to shellfish, while fish farm waste covers up the lobsters’ vital seafloor habitat.

Morton also popped into a few Sobeys grocery stores and purchased a couple dozen fish to inspect for microscopic diseases. But it was the larger sea lice that immediately caught her attention – several fish were covered with the parasite. Soon after a colleague posted a picture of the lice on facebook, the media caught wind of the story, prompting the grocery chain to pull all whole farmed salmon from its east coast stores. The company said monday that it was in the process of updating its handling procedures for the product to ensure this embarrassing incident doesn’t repeat itself.

Meanwhile, back in Vancouver, Morton and her colleague, SFU professor Rick Routledge, will be receiving the Sterling Prize in Support of Controversy from SFU tonight. The award, as its title implies, was founded in 1993 “to honour and encourage work that provokes and/or contributes to the understanding of controversy.” According to SFU’s website for the honour, “The Sterling Prize is awarded annually to a recipient whose work presents new ways of looking at the world, ways that are daring and creative.”

Morton and Routledge, who together first discovered the lethal ISA virus in wild BC salmon last year, will deliver a joint talk at the award ceremony, titled “Salmon Farms and Disease: The Importance of Both Academic Freedom and Community-Engaged Research.” The event takes place tonight, Wednesday October 24th, at the Morris J Wosk Centre for dialogue, 580 West Hastings Street. Attendance is free but online registration is required in advance.

Morton’s research has been generating controversy for quite some time, but at these honours and others she’s collected in recent years (including an honourary doctorate from SFU) indicate, her work is being taken more and more seriously by established academia – and now even some major farmed salmon retailers to boot.

Sobeys Pulls Farmed Salmon, Reviews Handling Procedures Due to Sea Lice Discovery in Stores

October 23, 2012Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Chronicle Herald on the decision by popular Canadian grocery chain Sobeys to pull farmed salmon from its Maritime shelves this past week over the discovery of whole fish with sea lice. (Oct. 23, 2012)

Sobeys found sea lice on about a dozen whole Atlantic salmon removed from store shelves last week and is reviewing quality control with the supplier, a grocery chain spokeswoman said Monday.

Whole Atlantic salmon have not yet been returned to the shelves.

“We pulled whole Atlantic salmon from Maritime store shelves after having the issue brought to our attention through social media,” Cynthia Thompson, with Sobeys Inc. in Stellarton, said in an interview.

“This amounted to about 80 fish, and staff who conducted the inspections found sea lice in some of these fish.”

Thompson said she understood sea lice were found on fewer than a dozen of the fish removed from the shelves.

The fish were removed from stores and inspected after a consumer posted a photo on Facebook of some sea lice on a whole Atlantic salmon allegedly purchased in Truro.

“We’re currently reviewing all the related quality-control issues with the wholesaler and expect to have whole Atlantic salmon back on the shelves in the not-to-distant future,” said Thompson.

“We, of course, urge any consumer experiencing any sort of quality control issue with any product in any of our stores to contact us as soon as possible.”

Sobeys sells few whole Atlantic salmon and more of the regular retail cuts and fillets of salmon, which were were not affected by Thursday’s product removal.

Sea lice affects farmed and wild salmon and is typically removed before the fish find their way into the retail distribution system, said Nell Halse, spokeswoman with Cooke Aquaculture Inc. in Blacks Harbour, N.B.

Halse said the whole Atlantic salmon involved in the clearance of the product from Sobeys shelves last week did not come from a Cooke Aquaculture farm.

The fish were from a different supplier who was using a Cooke-owned distribution company, she said.

“We can track each of our fish from the egg to the plate,” Halse said of the company’s quality-control system.

The source of the fish has not been identified.

Mark Hume: Businessman Russ George defends Haida Ocean Fertilization Project

October 23, 2012Geoengineering, Ocean Health, OceansCommon Sense Canadian

Mark Hume: Businessman Russ George Defends Haida Ocean Fertilization Project — Russ George, head of a controversial geoengineering project, in a 2007 photo (Thor Swift/The New York Times)

Read this column from Mark Hume in the Globe and Mail on the ocean fertilization project that caught the world by surprise last week, provoking criticism over fears of geoengineering and unintended ecological consequences. (Oct. 19, 2012)

Russ George, who designed a controversial ocean fertilization experiment now under investigation by Environment Canada, says he is being vilified for daring to go where none have gone before.

But he is not backing away from his research project or apologizing for the way the project was conducted, off the coast of British Columbia, saying that he is out to save the world’s oceans and demonstrate how to halt global warming.

While the damage from climate change mounts, he said, others are only talking – while he is acting.

“I am the champion of this on the planet,” he said in an interview on Thursday.

“If the world does nothing but look into the future about CO2 and says we have to reduce our emissions and we do nothing about the lethal dose we’ve already administered, then it doesn’t matter,” he said.

“If somebody doesn’t step forward to save the oceans, it’s too late.”

Mr. George, a California businessman, worked with the Old Massett Village Council, on Haida Gwaii, to dump 100 tonnes of an iron sulphate mix into the Pacific. The goal of the project was to trigger a plankton bloom in the hope of reviving salmon runs – and to demonstrate a theory that global warming can be blunted by using massive amounts of ocean plankton to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

The experiment took place this summer, apparently without sanction from any official body. There have been widespread expressions of concern from scientists, who fear the experiment could backfire, and political leaders, who are concerned international agreements banning ocean fertilization have been violated.

“Environment Canada did not approve this non-scientific event. Enforcement officers are now investigating,” Environment Minister Peter Kent said in Parliament on Thursday. “This government takes very seriously our commitment to protect the environment and anyone who contravenes environmental law should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, said the project is alarming.

“This kind of experiment is very, very risky business. Scientists have warned us it can destroy oceanic ecosystems, create toxic tides, and aggravate ocean acidification and global warming,” she said. “The bottom line is that ocean fertilization has a high potential of catastrophic effects and a low potential of success.”

Mr. George said his group advised the government all along of its plans and got legal opinions that they are not violating any international accords.

He said since news of the project broke earlier this week, he has been “under this dark cloud of vilification,” with some suggesting his motive is to profit through a carbon-trading scheme.

“I’m not a rich, scheming businessman, right. That’s not who I am. … This is my heart’s work, not my hip pocket work, right?” he said.

Norwegian Salmon Farming Giant Appeals Loss in Defamation Case Against Activist Don Staniford

October 16, 2012Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from CBC.ca on the decision by Mainstream Canada – BC-based subsidiary of Norwegian Government-owned Cermaq – to appeal anti-salmon farming activist Don Staniford’s recent victory over the defamation suit they brought against him at the BC Supreme Court. (Oct. 16, 2012)

The defamation case between a British Columbia salmon-farming company and an outspoken critic appears to be far from over.

Mainstream Canada said Monday that it would appeal a September decision by a B.C. Supreme Court justice to dismiss a defamation case against Don Staniford, but only hours later the British-born activist responded, saying he’d fight the appeal.

At issue is a 2011 Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture campaign that included images of cigarette-like packages and statements such as “Salmon Farming Kills Like Smoking.”

Justice Elaine Adair dismissed the case in September in favour of Staniford’s defence of fair comment, saying while his statements were defamatory and he was motivated by malice, the activist honestly believed in what he was saying and animosity wasn’t his dominant purpose.

“While it is disappointing that she ruled against us on a technical legal issue, we will pursue this vigorously in the court of appeal,” said David Wotherspoon, the company’s lawyer in a statement.

The company also said that Adair’s decision, if it stands, could compromise healthy debate on matters of public policy, and those debates should be based on fact, and critics should be accountable for their comments.

“Mainstream Canada and their parent company Cermaq have once again ignored the first rule of PR: when in a hole stop digging,” said Staniford, in response to Mainstream’s announcement Monday night.

“Cermaq’s knee-jerk reaction to appeal is yet another case of this multi-million dollar company shooting itself in the foot. Common sense is clearly not a currency this Norwegian-owned multinational is used to dealing in.”

Rafe Mair’s landmark free speech case credited in salmon activist Staniford’s victory

October 12, 2012Media, Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, SalmonDamien Gillis

I was delighted to learn recently that my good friend and colleague, leading salmon farming critic Don Staniford, won a major victory in the BC Supreme Court over the aquaculture industry – in large part thanks to an important legal precedent established by another good friend and colleague, Rafe Mair.

According to an opinion piece by Andrew Gage of West Coast Environmental Law, it was Rafe’s landmark victory at the Supreme Court of Canada a decade ago that formed the basis of Don’s victory in a defamation case brought against him last year by Mainstream Canada (the local arm of Norwegian global aquaculture giant Cermaq). At issue was a campaign the globetrotting British activist Staniford created comparing the salmon farming industry with Big Tobacco.

In his analysis of the case and judge’s ruling in favour of Staniford, announced two weeks ago, environmental law expert Andrew Gage explains how the precedent set by Mair’s victory in an unrelated defamation suit from his days on the radio at CKNW helped get Don off the hook today:

Don won because the Supreme Court of Canada has recently expanded the “defence of fair comment” in a case known as WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson. That case was a defamation suit against BC’s own Rafe Mair for comments that he made comparing a speech made by Kari Simpson on homosexuality to speeches made by Hitler and U.S. segregation era politicians. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Rafe’s appeal, and in doing so, said that individuals who express honestly held opinions – as long as they are clearly opinions and not claims of fact – cannot be found guilty of defamation. The Supreme Court says that the defence applies where:

(a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest;

(b) the comment must be based on fact;

(c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment;

(d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any [person] honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?

(e) even though the comment satisfies the objective test the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was [subjectively] actuated by express malice.

Don’s case is the first defamation case that we’re aware of involving defamation by an environmental activist since the Supreme Court’s decision in WIC Radio, and Adair J. found that Don’s cigarette packages satisfied all of these criteria. In doing so, she made a couple of findings which will protect environmentalists and others seeking to comment on high profile public issues.

As Gage alludes to above, the campaign created by Staniford that led to Mainstream’s suit involved a series of cigarette package graphics – disseminated through his website, social media and print materials – containing images of the salmon farming industry and statements comparing it to the tobacco business. The essence of the comparison was more with regards to the industry’s PR tactics and corporate behaviour than medical matters, though many of the graphics raised specific health impacts for marine life and humans from its operations and products.

Staniford and his lawyer David Sutherland characterized Mainstream’s legal strategy as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) – designed to shackle criticism of the company through the threat and reality of unwieldy legal costs. While Sutherland, acknowledged as one of the country’s top media and free speech lawyers, worked pro bono or at a reduced rate for much of the case, Don’s cause drew an outpouring of public support. In the end he raised $50,000 for his legal fund online, mostly through small donations, plus several other larger contributions from salmon fishermen’s unions, Norwegian anti-aquaculture groups and NGOs like West Coast Environmental Law.

I’ve had the privilege of working alongside both Don and Rafe for a number of years, doing battle with the Norwegian aquaculture giants around the world – and am proud of their significant contributions both to this cause and to the protection of free speech.

My assessment of Cermaq/Mainstream’s tactics in this case – apart from the legal dimensions, which are not my province – is that this Norwegian-Canadian Goliath allowed its own pride and bullying attitude to draw it into a battle it should never have waged.

Don had some valid points and he wasn’t the first to make them – in fact, the genesis of his campaign concept was a comment made by mutual ally and aquaculture critic Otto Langer in a documentary Don and I produced together a few years ago, called “Farmed Salmon Exposed”. In that film, the retired DFO senior scientist and manager equates the industry’s choice to deny steadfastly the growing body of evidence of its environmental impacts with Big Tobacco’s denial of health effects. But rather than agree to disagree with Don’s campaign, rebutting it through their own PR machine (which they did in abundance), they had to go one step further and bully him through the courts.

They saw Don was financially vulnerable and decided to attack him with a vengeance.

But Don had many assets on his side they failed to see: overwhelming public goodwill stemming from years of frustration with the industry – which translated into tens of thousands of dollars for Don’s legal fund – a skilled lawyer with a point to prove, and that little case won years ago at the Supreme Court by Rafe Mair.

In choosing to take this beef into the courts, Mainstream gambled and lost big time. Not only will they have to repay some of Staniford and Sutherland’s legals costs as part of the court’s judgement, but they suffered yet another black eye in the media.

As Andrew Gage asserts in his insightful post-mortem, Staniford’s case is a “victory for free speech” and “give[s] environmentalists some comfort that they won’t be held liable for any controversial statement made about corporations.” Yet it also underscores how heavily the legal process has become weighed toward corporations – and should prompt renewed discussion about tilting the balance more in the direction of free speech and social activism:

…the decision does nothing to address the broader problem of allowing large corporations with extremely deep pockets to drag their political opponents into court. The costs of going to court (and defamation cases are particularly expensive) are prohibitive for activists, but are a tax deductible expense for big companies. The result is an unequal playing field where those who speak out against environmental destruction risk being sued by deep-pocketed opponents.

Gage and Sutherland both offer solutions, including legislative changes to ban corporate lawsuits in defamation and specifically restricting SLAPP suits. Clearly, Don’s case brings these concerns to the fore again and it’s high time we had this discussion at the political level, instead of relying on costly courtroom battles to decide these matters one precedent at a time.

For the moment, though, I offer a pat on the back to my two friends and colleagues, Don and Rafe, for their ongoing commitment to the environment and free speech. Both have the balls to take on Goliath and the skill to land one between the eyes every now and then.

Peter Ladner in Business in Vancouver: Recalculating the Costs of Salmon Farms in BC

October 11, 2012Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story by Peter Ladner from Business in Vancouver, which details the author’s own recent conversion to a skeptic of the open net pen salmon aquaculture industry in BC. (Aug. 14, 2012)

I used to be keenly interested in fish farming. I toured fish farms, processing plants and hatcheries. I once spoke at the national meeting of the Canadian aquaculture industry in Ottawa to say that opposition to fish farms was overblown and misguided. I earned that trip through a series of columns in BIV defending the industry from ridiculous claims such as fears that escaped Atlantic salmon would outmuscle the native Pacific salmon and take over local streams. Today, I’m not so sure about the industry. I’ve followed anti-fish farm crusader Alexandra Morton’s campaigns with interest, believing that “crusading scientist” is an oxymoron (notwithstanding Morton’s honorary degree from SFU) and refusing to believe that all the problems of B.C.’s wild salmon fisheries could be pinned on lice, disease or antibiotics from fish farms. I’ve listened to my friends in the aquaculture industry insist that “90% of what she’s saying is not true.” According to one, who wouldn’t speak for attribution, “They have never found a disease in [farmed] Atlantic salmon that is not already present in [wild] Pacific salmon.”

Then I accepted an invitation to hear Morton speak July 16 at the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club. About 200 people were there on short notice to help her raise funds for disease testing at the Salmon Coast Field Station (www.salmoncoast.org, www.deptwildsalmon.org) and for her advocacy group, the Pacific Coast Wild Salmon Society. There was money in the room.

Introduced by SFU professor of statistics Rick Routledge as one of the most competent scientists he had ever worked with, Morton launched into an impassioned and highly persuasive diatribe against an industry-government coverup of the spread of harmful European viruses from farmed salmon to B.C.’s beleaguered wild salmon stocks.

“Salmon farms amplify disease to levels wild salmon are not equipped to survive,” she concluded. Morton has taken it upon herself to finance tests of wild salmon to confirm her data showing that B.C. farm salmon are testing positive for European farm salmon diseases, among them the lethal infectious salmon anemia (ISA) virus that has devastated fish farms in other countries.

Morton says the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has been hiding ISA-positive results from Fraser River sockeye stock and in salmon farms in Clayoquot Sound. DFO scientist Kristi Miller, otherwise forbidden to speak to the media, told the Cohen commission she was prohibited from testing further for ISA, even though she had found it in two Clayoquot Sound salmon farms.

“No ISA virus has ever been found on farmed fish in B.C.,” declared Mary Ellen Walling, executive director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA). She says 7,000 fish have been tested by several government labs. “We would be very concerned if we found it on farmed fish.”

With good reason.

B.C. Agriculture Minister Don McRae said in March that Asian and U.S. markets were threatening to close their borders if the ISA virus was confirmed here.

That threatens an industry that is B.C.’s biggest agriculture exporter, provides some 6,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributes $800 million annually to the provincial economy, according to the BCSFA.

With all that at stake, it’s not surprising that government would bend and sway to protect the industry. But it’s inexcusable. That’s a view shared by John Fraser, former MP and fisheries minister, as he used the SOB epithet three times in his fiery closing remarks at the dinner, concluding, “if we don’t solve this [fish farm disease] problem, we’re not going to have any fish.”

For that to happen, publicly funded scientists have to be allowed to work to protect wild fish, not the fish farming industry.

Read original story: http://www.biv.com/article/20120814/BIV0319/308149943/-1/biv14/recalculating-the-costs-and-consequences-of-fish-farms-in-bc

Salmon Activist Don Staniford Wins Big Victory in Defamation Case Over Norwegian Aquaculture Giant

September 30, 2012Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from CBC.ca on anti-salmon farming activist Don Staniford’s recent victory in the BC Supreme Court in a defamation case brought against him by Norwegian salmon farming giant Cermaq-Mainstream for a controversial campaign that equated the industry’s practices with Big Tobacco. (Sept. 28, 2012)

An anti-salmon-farming activist has won another victory against the global aquaculture industry, but also has been harshly criticized by a B.C. Supreme Court justice

Justice Elaine Adair has dismissed a defamation case launched by the salmon-farming company Mainstream Canada against Don Staniford over a 2011 campaign that included images of cigarette-like packages and statements such as “Salmon Farming Kills Like Smoking.”

In her ruling published Friday, Adair said while the statements were defamatory and Staniford was motivated by malice, the activist honestly believed in what he was saying and animosity wasn’t his dominant purpose.

The ruling left officials at Mainstream Canada, a subsidiary of the Norwegian company Cermaq, disappointed.

But the British-born Staniford, who was removed from Canada this past February for overstaying a visitor’s permit, was in a celebratory mood.

“I am over the proverbial moon and feel extremely vindicated,” he said during a phone interview from Spain. “All along I knew that Cermaq [was] whistling in the dark.”

“This is a victory not just for Don Staniford against Mainstream Canada. This is a victory for environmental campaigners, social-justice campaigners across the world.”

Laurie Jensen, a spokeswoman for Mainstream Canada, said the company will be reviewing the ruling, noting it’s too early to say if it will appeal, and she defended the court action, saying it was the right thing to do.

“What we’re seeing is a character of a person,” she said. “And because, you know, he’s not found legally responsible doesn’t mean that, you know, he’s getting away with things.”

She said Adair’s ruling supports many of the company’s allegations, but she’s disappointed the judge dismissed the court action over fair comment, a ruling she called “outrageous.”

The court action was not the first faced by Staniford.

His first legal threat came from a Scottish salmon-farming company in 2001 but that never went to trial. He also won a new trial that has yet to happen after appealing a defamation victory by B.C.’s Creative Salmon Company in 2007.

The latest defamation case was launched by Mainstream Canada based on a Jan. 31, 2011 Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture campaign.

Court documents state a news release sent to media included four mock-cigarette packages, all modelled after the Marlboro brand, containing statements like, “Salmon Farming Kills,” “Salmon Farming is Poison,” “Salmon Farming is Toxic,” and “Salmon Farming Seriously Damages Health.”

Images also appeared on the global alliance’s website.

Tankers too risky for coast environment

September 1, 2012Energy and Resources, Fisheries, Pipelines and SupertankersBC Oil Pipelines and SupertankersRafe Mair

I am, God knows, no scientist and it’s this that made by heart warm when I saw the story in the Vancouver Sun, September 1 at page A5 headlined “Tankers too risky for coast environment, engineers say”.

Three engineers including two professors emeritus from UBC have verified what I and others have been saying for some time. From the story: “Known as Dilbit, diluted bitumen is a mix of heavy crude oil and a condensate that allows it to flow through a pipe, the analysis explains. When Dilbit spills occur, the condensate separates from the bitumen and forms a toxic cloud, poisonous to all life around a spill” …

“And whereas lighter oil floats on the surface of water where it’s easier to clean up, bitumen sinks to the bottom in fresh water and to a level below the surface in saline water.”

“In both cases it is almost impossible to clean up and tides and currents can spread it over vast areas, with severe and catastrophic consequences for fisheries, marine life, and human safety.” (Emphasis added)

This is scarcely the whole picture when we remember that the Enbridge pipeline travels 1100 kms over the world’s most formidable terrain where the spills are many times more likely to happen than on the coast and will be unreachable by the company which won’t be able to do anything about them anyway. Because these spills will remain, we have a serial polluter on our hands with each new spill adding a new area of devastation.

There is another area no one seems to want to talk about – vandalism or terrorism. We have seen examples of this with gas lines in the Peace area – why do we ignore them with Enbridge and the Kinder Morgan lines.

Yet one more area of concern is how the public and the authorities ever know if there’s a spill on either of these lines. Kinder Morgan has had spills in populated areas but have there been others along their lines that have simply been repaired with none any the wiser?

It’s past time for Premier Clark to make it clear that the Province opposes both the pipelines and the tanker traffic and will do all in its power to prevent them from happening.

Former DFO Manager, Minister: Harper ‘Disembowelled’ Science Budget for Enbridge Review

August 20, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Fisheries, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Politics, Stephen HarperCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on evidence that despite his feigned commitment to “listen to science” on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, Prime Minster Stephen Harper has “disembowelled” the science budget for the pipeline review. (Aug. 20, 2012)

VANCOUVER – While Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the fate of Enbridge’s proposed pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast will be based on science and not politics, documents show some of that science isn’t forthcoming.

And critics say there is no time for the science to be completed before a federal deadline for the environmental assessment currently underway.

Documents filed with the National Energy Board show the environmental review panel studying the Northern Gateway project asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada for risk assessments for the bodies of water the proposed pipeline will cross. The pipeline is to traverse nearly 1,000 streams and rivers in the upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds.

The department didn’t have them.

“As DFO has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase,” DFO wrote in a five-page letter dated June 6, 2012.

The response went on to say there “may be differences of opinion” between the company and the department on the risk posed by the pipeline at some crossings. It provided two examples of crossings of tributaries to the Kitimat River where Enbridge rated the risk as low but Fisheries rated it medium to high.

DFO said the federal ministry will continue to work with the company to determine the risk level and level of mitigation required.

“DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures,” said the department’s response.

“Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.”

Earlier this month, Harper told reporters in Vancouver that “decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project, and that’s how we conduct our business.”

He went on to say “the only way that government can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria.”

But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright.

The cuts will mean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.

All but five of the province’s fisheries field offices will be cut as part of a $79 million — 5.8 per cent — cut to the department’s operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that would have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects.

The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.

“He (Harper) says the science will make the decision. Well he’s basically disembowelled the science,” said Langer. “It’s a cruel hoax that they’re pulling over on the public.”

Former federal Liberal fisheries minister David Anderson agrees.

Commercial, Recreational Sockeye Fisheries Likely Closed for 2012

August 19, 2012FisheriesSalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from CBC.ca, reporting that the commercial and recreational sockeye fisheries likely won’t open in 2012, due to low returns on the Fraser River. (Aug. 16, 2012)

British Columbia’s lucrative commercial and recreational sockeye salmon fishery is not likely to open this year, as Fisheries and Oceans Canada says there are simply not enough fish coming back.

Although there has been enough returning fish to fill the spawning grounds and open an aboriginal fishery, numbers have actually started to decrease.

In order for a commercial fishery to operate, the number of summer run sockeye salmon would have had to be roughly double last week’s count.

“Returns to some of the populations this year have been fairly good,” said Barry Rosenberger, co-chair of the Pacific Salmon Commission’s Fraser River Panel.

“But overall, we haven’t achieved a total abundance that would allow us to commercially fish.”

The Common Sense Canadian

Critical discussion of key issues shaping our economy and environment.