Tag Archives: Salmon

NDP Fisheries Critic Fin Donnelly

NDP Fisheries Critic Takes Harper Government to Task Over Leaked Changes to Fisheries Act

Canada, Fisheries, Politics, ,
Share

Federal NDP Fisheries Critic Fin Donnelly took the Harper Government to task in Question Period earlier today over its plan to slip significant changes to the Fisheries Act into its omnibus bill. The changes – leaked yesterday to retired senior DFO scientist and manager Otto Langer – would water down key habitat protections contained in section 35 of the Act.

Donnelly raised the matter in Ottawa today, stating, “It appears the Conservatives are planning to bury sweeping changes to the Fisheries Act in the upcoming budget. The Minister uses the word ‘modernize’. But removing habitat protection from the Fisheries Act will set Canada back decades. The Minister must come clean. Is the Minister planning to change Section 35 of the Fisheries Act in the next budget? Is the plan to eliminate the protection of fish habitat in Canada and effectively gut the law? Yes or no?”

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Keith Ashfield responded, “Of course, there’s been absolutely no decision made with regard to this issue. I’ll note that Canada is blessed with an abundant array of natural resources, of which we should be proud and which we take seriously and responsibly to conserve and protect.”

In a statement published earlier today by The Common Sense Canadian, veteran fisheries scientist Otto Langer – who first raised alarm bells over the proposed changes – explained:

I have just been leaked a confidential copy of proposed changes to the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act as directed by the political levels within the Harper Government. The government is totally re-writing the habitat protection provisions of Section 35(1) so as to remove habitat protection out of the Fisheries Act. This is a serious situation and will put Canada back to where we were in the pre 1976 period where Canada had no laws to protect fish habitat and no way to monitor the great industrial expansion that occurred in Canada with the consequential loss of major fish habitat all across Canada.

The amendments to section 35 revolve around two key policy changes. The first seeks to divide fish into two separate classes – those which are “important” and deserving of protection and those which are not. The new act would read, “No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity, other than fishing, that results in an adverse effect on a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value.” (emphasis added).

Mr. Langer expressed his concerns about this important change: “What is a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value? If is has no economic value, can it now be needlessly destroyed? This newly drafted provision is not intended to protect fish habitat in any manner whatsoever.”

The second key change is the removal of the word habitat from this section of the Act altogether. Mr. Langer notes, “The lack of mention of ‘habitat’ in the proposed draft law and the number of subjective and ambiguous words inserted into this major amendment will make any enforcement of this new law very difficult.“

Fisheries Critic Donnelly is concerned these changes are designed to clear the way for industrial projects favoured the Harper Government. In a press release following the above exchange in the House, he stated, “The Conservative government is systematically dismantling environmental protection and regulation. By eliminating provisions to protect fish habitat, they can push through their agenda of pipelines, oil super tankers, mega mines and other projects that harm the environment.”

The issue has attracted significant attention in the media and environmental community today, adding yet another controversy to the Harper Government’s omnibus bill.

Share

Veteran Fisheries Scientist Warns Harper Government Watering Down Habitat Protections in Omnibus Bill

Canada, Fisheries, Politics, Western Canada, ,
Share

To date the Harper government has shown little regard for the protection of the environment and over the past few years has supervised the almost total elimination of enforcement of the habitat  protection and the pollution provisions of the Canada Fisheries Act (Sections 35 and 36 respectively). During the Cohen Inquiry in 2011 data was presented to show that pollution and habitat violation investigations have been greatly reduced and convictions of violations in BC and indeed throughout Canada is now almost non-existent (see attachment).

The Fisheries Act of Canada was put in place in 1868 and is one of the oldest and most tested pieces of environmental legislation in the world. In 1975 many people worked hard to get a proper section added to the Act to protect fish habitat in Canada. Section 35 (habitat protection) was passed by Parliament in 1976 and has been extensively used across Canada over the past 36 years. In B.C., the Federal and BC governments largely quit enforcing  the pollution and habitat sections of the Act in favor of allowing industry to self govern their own environmental project’s ‘needs’ and monitor their own self compliance. This has proven to be a disaster wherever it has been attempted elsewhere in the World.
 
I have just been leaked a confidential copy of proposed changes to the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act as directed by the political levels within the Harper Government. The government is totally re-writing the habitat protection provisions of Section 35(1) so as to remove habitat protection out of the Fisheries Act. This is a serious situation and will put Canada back to where we were in the pre 1976 period where Canada had no laws to protect fish habitat and no way to monitor the great industrial expansion that occurred in Canada with the consequential loss of major fish habitat all across Canada.

Fish habitat includes the lakes, rivers and oceans and their water flows, life processes, the banks and the riparian vegetation along a water way, marshes, gravel beds and the diversity of habitat that allow a rich and diverse population of life to live in our waterways that supports a large economic, cultural and recreational fishery. Also this habitat produces healthy and robust populations of fish that are essential to the feeding and maintaining the health of the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems e.g. the bears, eagles, otters, grebes, herons, etc.

Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act now states:

35(1) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

(2) No person contravenes subsection (1) by causing the alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat by an means or under any conditions authorized by the Minister or under the regulations made by the Governor in Counsel under this Act

The proposed new subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act is as follows:

35(1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity, other than fishing, that results in an adverse effect on a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value.

(2) No person contravenes subsection (1) if

(a) the adverse effect is authorized by the Minister and is produced in accordance with the conditions established by the Minister;

(b) the adverse effect is authorized by a person prescribed by the regulations and is produced in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the regulations;

(c) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions set out in the regulations or with any other authorization issued under this Act;

(d) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in, on, over, under, through or across any Canadian fisheries waters, and

(i) the work, undertaking or activity falls within a class of works, undertakings or activities, or the Canadian fisheries waters fall within a class of Canadian fisheries waters, established by regulation, and

(ii) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the regulations.

The existing effective and essential piece of legislation is to be changed to apparently just protect fish – something that the Act already does.  The lack of mention of ‘habitat’ in the proposed draft law and the number of subjective and ambiguous words inserted into this major amendment will make any enforcement of this new law very difficult. For instance what is a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value? If is has no economic value, can it now be needlessly destroyed? This newly drafted provision is not intended to protect fish habitat in any manner whatsoever. To support the habitat provisions in the Act, in 1986 DFO developed the National Habitat Policy with it’s central theme of ‘no net loss’ and it was once heralded as one of Canada’s first policies promoting sustainable development. Will that now also be withdrawn?

Also the above drafted section is enabling the making of regulations and, as with CEAA, the government may pass many regulations that restrict the intent of that section of the Act. That is double jeopardy. First the Canadian government amends the legislation to eliminate the protection of fish habitat and then it may undermine that new questionable fish protection legislation by allowing the passing of regulations that will create loopholes in what is left in the Act.

DFO used to hand out pencils and pens with the slogan embossed on their sides: No Habitat – No Fish. The Prime Minster and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must realize that the Government has not replaced nature and has not changed the ecological and natural laws that create habitat and maintain ecological functioning in our essential life supporting aquatic ecosystems. They cannot replace living forms of life and their habitats and when it’s gone, it’s gone. Why at this key time in our history of ongoing industrial development pressures on our rivers, lakes and oceans, do we turn away from responsible aquatic habitat protection responsibilities? Where is the ethic and moral responsibility for our children and future generations and those that cannot be heard or cannot vote   – our fish and wildlife resources?

This proposed move by the Harper government is a travesty for our fishery resources and the health of the entire ecosystem and it ignores the needs of our future generations. It is little less than another attack on the biological systems that allow life to exist on this planet. To make matters worse, the political level has decided to not consult with DFO staff or the public on these proposed changes. The Harper government will attempt to sneak this neutering of the Fisheries Act through Parliament within the next two weeks by tacking it on to the end of the up coming Budget Omnibus Bill.

This is disgraceful and the movers of this legislative change are urged  to reconsider their planned reckless and irresponsible actions. All sport fish groups, fishermen, First Nations, ENGOs and the public must say enough is enough and oppose what Mr. Harper is planning to do.

Biography of Otto E. Langer (BSc(Zool) MSc):

Worked for DFO and DOE for 32 years in habitat and water quality protection issues. Helped organize BC Assoc. of Prof. Biologists and was President of the group. Qualified as an expert witness on over 100 pollution and habitat destruction cases in Canada from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island. Published and directed many studies relating to the protection status of BC habitats. Author of the red, yellow and green habitat color zoning system that is used to protect the Fraser River Estuary.  Promoted the inclusion of habitat protection provisions into the Fisheries Act in 1975.

Awarded the BC Government Silver Metal for urban stream riparian protection in 2000; BCWF BC Conservationist of the Year 2009; Co-recipient of BC Best Regional Book Prize 2005 – Stain Upon the Sea – a book dedicated to exposing the salmon farm industry in BC. Awarded the CWF Roland Michener Canadian Conservationist of the Year Award for 2010. Left government in 2001 and joined the David Suzuki Foundation (2001 to 2005) and formed their Marine Conservation Program. Has been retired for past 7 years and does volunteer work for many conservation causes including VAPOR (no jet fuel tankers in the Fraser River) , Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee (Chilliwack), oil and oil sands issues, London UK based MSC (2001-2010), BC Marine Conservation Caucus and had legal standing at the Cohen Inquiry on declining Fraser River sockeye stocks.   

Share

Newly Obtained Documents Reveal Private River Power Projects Killing Fish

Fisheries, WATER, , ,
Share

Read this exclusive story from the Vancouver Sun on documents obtained by the Wilderness Committee that demonstrate private river power projects are killing fish. (Match 10, 2012)

The Mamquam River pours cold and fresh off the Coast Mountains, forming pools and canyons and chutes of white water on its way to the Squamish River and Howe Sound.

It was a natural place for federal fisheries biologists to assemble on an August 2010 weekend for swift-water safety training. Like the river itself, however, their exercise took an expected turn.

Rather than watch the Mamquam flow predictably to the sea, the biologists were dismayed to witness the water levels fluctuate wildly — and with dire consequences.

Young steelhead were dying, stranded without water.

The culprit? The Capital Power run-of-river hydro plant, located just upstream.

The independent power industry bills itself as green, sustainable and environmentally responsible.

But more than 3,000 pages of documents obtained separately by The Vancouver Sun and the Wilderness Committee through freedom of information requests show water-flow fluctuations caused by run-of-river hydro projects are killing fish — and the problem is not isolated.

While independent power producers insist their sector remains the cleanest energy option, the documents bolster environmentalists’ long-standing concerns about the industry.

“I’m seeing significant environmental problems,” said Gwen Barlee, policy director for the Wilderness Committee. “And that runs completely counter to what the companies are saying, which is essentially, ‘Trust us with your wild rivers and there won’t be any problems.’ ”

The documents detail repeated short-term fluctuations in water flows, resulting in the stranding and killing of juvenile fish downstream of two plants, Capital Power on the lower Mamquam and Innergex on Ashlu Creek, another tributary of the Squamish.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Exclusive+river+power+projects+kill+fish/6278890/story.html

Share

Rafe Confronts Dix on LNG, Fracking, Enbridge

Canada, Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oceans, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western Canada, , , , , , , , ,
Share

Rafe Mair pulls no punches in this, the second of a two-part interview with BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix – grilling the potential future premier of BC on Liquid Natural Gas, fracking, the proposed Enbridge pipeline and salmon farms. Will the NDP stand up to Harper over Enbridge and open net pen aquaculture? Why do they favour LNG – and how do they reconcile their support for it with the controversial fracking process that would supply it with much of its gas? Watch and find out!

Share

Salmon Activist Don Staniford Has Left the Country…Continues Battle in Norway

Oceans, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture,
Share

Read this story from the Winnipeg Free Press on salmon activist Don Staniford’s deportation from Canada and new job taking on the aquaculture industry in its global headquarters nation of Norway. (March 5, 2012)

VANCOUVER – Only days after he was removed from Canada for overstaying a visitor’s permit, a controversial salmon-farming critic says he has settled in Norway to “slay the dragon in its own lair.”

Since 2005, British-born activist Don Staniford has been a divisive force in British Columbia’s ongoing salmon-farming debate. He has been accused by the industry of going beyond rational dialogue and distorting facts and has twice been sued by B.C. companies for defamation.

But supporters see him as a tireless critic and Staniford is promising to take his battle against the industry to Europe, where he’ll serve as the global campaign co-ordinator for another environmental group.

“I’ve gone straight to work for the Green Warriors of Norway and straight to the belly of the beast here in Norway,” said Staniford, in a phone interview.

“Norway controls much of the global industry and I’m going to slay the dragon in its own lair.”

The new job is significant because Kurt Oddekalv, leader of the Green Warriors of Norway, has described himself as the most “hard hitting environmental warrior” in his country.

Also significant is Staniford’s legal history.

Staniford’s most-recent defamation case was launched by Mainstream Canada, a subsidiary of the Norwegian company Cermaq.

The case has wrapped up in the Supreme Court of B.C., but a judgment has yet to be made.

Read more: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/bc-salmon-farming-critic-removed-from-canada-but-vows-to-continue-battle-141397213.html

Share

Breaking: ISA Salmon Virus Outbreak Suspected at Nova Scotia Fish Farm

Oceans, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, ,
Share

Read this story from the Winnipeg Free Press on a suspected outbreak of the deadly ISAv salmon virus at a Cook Aquaculture open net pen salmon farm in Nova Scotia. (Feb 17, 2012)

HALIFAX – Cooke Aquaculture says it has a suspected outbreak of the infectious salmon anemia virus at one of its fish farms in Nova Scotia.

In a statement today, the seafood company says it destroyed fish contained in two cages at one of its fish farming sites after routine tests and surveillance of its stocks on Feb. 10.

But the company declined to say where the outbreak is suspected.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is investigating, but it too declined to say where the suspected outbreak is located.

Con Kiley, director of the agency’s aquatic animal health program, says the location can’t be made public due to privacy concerns.

Kiley says the virus is not a human health or food risk, but according to the agency’s website, it can kill up to 90 per cent of infected fish, depending on its strain.

He says tests will be conducted at a federal lab in Moncton, N.B., to confirm whether the virus is present.

Read original article: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/suspected-outbreak-of-salmon-virus-at-fish-farming-operation-in-nova-scotia-139530833.html

 

 

 

Share

Veteran Fish Scientist Highlights Key Risks from Enbridge Pipelines

Energy and Resources, Fisheries, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, , ,
Share

Dr. Gordon Hartman is a retired senior biologist and manager for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with a deep knowledge of the region affected by the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. Here he provides an essential summary of the threats from the pipeline to fish populations as well as the very real geological concerns surrounding the project.

Introduction

There are very serious and reasonable concerns about the risk of tanker traffic accidents as the ‘oil’ starts its 150+ km tanker journey from near Kitimat, through the narrow Douglas Channel to the open ocean. A report by Anthony Swift and four other authors presents a ‘must read’ review, “Pipeline and Tanker Trouble: The Impact to British Columbia’s Communities, Rivers, and Pacific Coastline from Tar sands Oil Transport”.

The following short article examines three of the specific risks that exist in the 1,170 km double pipeline before the oil ever gets to the tankers. In the report by Anthony Swift and others, 11 ‘special places at risk’ are listed.  

In the proposed ‘double line’ system up to 525,000 barrels/day, of bitumen and a diluting condensate, are to be pumped ‘westward’ in a 91 cm pile line. Diluting condensate, from off shore, is to be pumped ‘eastward’ at a rate of up to 193,000 barrels/day (Bustard and Miles 2011). A major failure, caused by an event such as a landslide, would release materials from both lines.

The following article is based, to a large degree, on the articles that are listed at the end. Such a list is clearly not comprehensive. Regardless of that, because they are based on work done by people with decades of competent professional experience, it is clear that there are serious risks along the line before the oil ever reaches the tankers. Pipeline spills into rivers in Northwest B.C. mountains: ‘not if, but when’.

Geological  Concerns

The proposed corridor crosses three different physiographic units, each of which presents different hazards to a pipeline. “The geology and geomorphology of west central B.C is complex and destructive landslides are common.  Various landslide types have occurred along the proposed pipeline corridor within the defined physiographic units:” (Schwab 2011). The types of landslide and the risks are discussed in this paper.

There are three things that are important to note:                                                                            

  1. There are several kinds of slope failures that may affect land uses below them
  2. Some of these landslides originate far upslope, travel several km, and become large and destructive. Remedial measures are not easy to plan for
  3. Most of the dated and large landslides are associated with wet, warm, weather. Climate change patterns suggest conditions will become warmer and wetter.                                                                                                                                 

These points barely touch on the details of Schwab’s report. However, they should indicate, even for starters, that much of the approximately 220 km western end of this proposed corridor is a risky and problematic route in which to build large, double, high volume oil pipelines.

Risks to a Population of Large, Biologically Distinct, Rainbow Trout

A paper by Hagen (2011) presents special concern about risks to the habitat of a race of large and unique Rainbow trout. The proposed route crosses the upper reaches of the Sutherland River, at the eastern end of Babine Lake. This river supports a population of large, biologically distinct Rainbow trout.These fish are similar to the world famous Gerrard Rainbow trout from Kootenay Lake.

The proposed pipeline route ‘traverses through the upper portion of the core spawning and rearing habitats’ of the Sutherland River trout. About 95% of the area below the pipeline crossing of the Sutherland River has been rated by the Provincial Protected Areas Team as having ‘very high conservation values’.       

The remoteness, complex habitat, and very limited access of the drainage make the Sutherland River a very difficult area to reach if a pipeline break and spill were to occur at its upper end.

This population of fish contributes, in a major way, to the economically and socially valuable trout fishery of Babine Lake. Furthermore, no other population of large, piscivorous, Rainbow trout has been identified in Babine Lake.

Risks to a High Production Section of the Morice River

Some of the most serious risks to fish habitat and populations, along the route, occur in a 71 km section of the pipeline traversing areas adjacent to the upper reaches of the Morice River and Gosnell Creek. In  a 34 km section of the river (Reach 2 in the report), the pipeline is located in, or adjacent to, the floodplain with its “numerous active secondary channels, log jams and wetlands that comprise the core spawning and rearing habitat for Morice River fish populations.” (Bustard and Miles 2011).       

In a near hundred page report Bustard and Miles provide in-depth information on the biology and numbers of summer run Steelhead and Chinook, Coho, Sockeye and Pink salmon that use this critical section of the river.  Their report examines the impacts of an oil spill within this section of river.  It considers downstream impacts in the Morice and Bulkley rivers.

In order to provide a context for comparisons they review three past oil spills; Exxon Valdez, Pine River, and Kalamazoo River. They describe cleanup effectiveness of these spills.

Fish Populations

The section of river upstream from Moricetown (near Smithers) supports an important part of the salmon populations of the Skeena River system. The mean annual escapements of Coho salmon, 1997 – 2010, upstream from Moricetown, are 35,000. From 30 to 40 % of these fish spawn within Reach 2 of the Morice River. The complex river habitat in Reach 2 is ideal for Coho salmon juvenile rearing.

The Morice-Nanika Sockeye stock, 8,000 to 10,000 fish, is the largest in the Bulkley system. Reach 2 is the migration corridor for these fish.

The Morice River is the most important Chinook salmon river in the Skeena watershed. Spawning populations have averages slightly over 10,000 during the last decade. Between 35 and 45% of the young Chinook salmon rearing  between Morice Lake and Smithers occur in Reach 2.

The Morice River, upstream from Moricetown,  supports the largest Steelhead run in the Skeena River system – average of 19,000 fish per year. Steelhead juveniles rear, preferably, in the log jam habitat of Reach 2.

Other fish species in the Morice River system include Bull trout, Mountain whitefish, Prickly sculpins and Pacific lamprey. These species may not be rated so highly for commercial or recreational use, however, they are important parts of the river system.

Oil Spill Impacts

A pipeline break along the Morice River would spread hydrocarbons through Reach 2 could contaminate a large number of log jams – the habitat of juvenile salmonids winter and summer. There are an estimated 1,000 log jams in this reach. Within this approximately 34 km of braided river habitat there is an estimated 370 km of river shoreline. The degree of ‘habitat oiling’ would depend on river level. However, it is evident that a spill above, or in upper Reach 2 would have an immediate toxic impact on fish spawning and rearing in this section.

As the oil and diluting component mix moved downstream, progressively more of the diluting component would evaporate. With this evaporation, the increasingly concentrated bitumen would sink and become incorporated in the streambed leading to long term impacts, especially for salmon egg development.

In Reach 2, eggs or alevins are present in the gravels year- around. Juvenile Chinook, Coho  and Steelhead are also in this reach every month of the year. The ‘oiling’ and cleanup of this section of the river would totally alter the channel structure and log jam habitat for such fish. It could not be re-built as it was before a spill.

Where the bitumen became ‘imbedded’ along the many km of river habitat, adequate removal would be nearly impossible. Below a spill in Reach 2, the oil “could very quickly reach downstream habitats in the lower Morice and Bulkley rivers, and potentially the Skeena River.” (Bustard and Miles 2011).  The average velocity of the Morice River between May and November is at least 1 m/sec. – too fast for containment booms.  A spill in Reach 2 of the Morice River would take 12 hours to reach a point near Smithers.

Bustard and Miles conclude by describing the array of difficulties in effectively capturing and cleaning up spilled oil in Reach 2. The location is remote, access is poor, the river is large and fast, the channel is large and complex, and the ‘enormous’ volume of woody debris would limit boat access to many reach sections. To the date of their writing, the proponent has not provided the information needed to show that an oil spill adjacent to Reach 2 could be effectively controlled or remediated.

There are other sections of the pipeline along which there are other concerns. The cumulative risks and impacts of pipeline breaks along with the potential for tanker accidents make the whole project one of folly, risk and ecological disaster. Surely, we can do better.

G.F. Hartman, February, 2012
         
References and reading

Bustard, D. and M. Miles. 2011. Potential effects of an oil pipeline rupture on Reach 2 of the Morice River. A submission to the Joint Review Panel: Enbridge Northern Gateway project. 100 p. http://northwestinstute.ca/

Hagen, J. 2011. Rainbow Trout of the Sutherland River in the Babine Lake Watershed, British Columbia, and Risks Associate with the Northern Gateway Pipeline. A Submission to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel. 15 p.

Levy, D. 2009. Pipelines and salmon in Northern British Columbia. Prepared for the Pembina Institute. 46 p. http://pembina.org/pub/1894

Schwab, J.  2011. Hillslope and Fluvial Processes Along the Proposed Pipeline Corridor, Burns Lake to Kitimat, West  Central British Columbia. Prepared for Bulkley Valley Centre for Natural Resources Research and Management. 27p. http://www.bvcentre.ca/

Skeena Wild. Enbridge. 2011? Project Overview. http://skeenawild.org/conservation-issues/enbridge/

Swift, A., N. Lemphers and three co-authors. 2011.  Pipeline and Tanker Trouble: The Impact to British Columbia’s Communities, Rivers, and the Pacific Coastline from Tar sands Oil Transport.  30 p. http://www.pembina.org/pub2289

Share
Norwegian anti-fish farm activist Kurt Oddekalv at one of his provocative campaign stunts

Bad Boy Salmon Activists Teaming Up in Norway

Oceans, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture,
Share

The Norwegian salmon farming industry got a lesson in the old adage, “be careful what you wish for” this week when it learned of industry critic Don Staniford’s next job.

The British-born, globe-trotting salmon activist announced on his blog yesterday that following his scheduled deportation from Canada later this month he will be heading to Norway to work with that country’s leading environmentalist bad boy, Kurt Oddekalv, head of the Green Warriors of Norway. 

The industry may have got its wish – seeing the last of Staniford in BC – but it’s turning out to be a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Oddekalv had this to say on the development: “I am pleased to announce that Don Staniford is coming to Norway to spearhead the global work of the Green Warriors. Once he has finished fighting the Norwegian Government owned company Cermaq in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Don is welcome here in Norway.  Cermaq’s problems in Canada are coming home to roost.”

One of the industry’s three Norwegian titans – which together own 92% of BC’s salmon farms – Cermaq-Mainstream, is currently suing Staniford for defamation at the BC Supreme Court over his recent campaign comparing salmon aquaculture to Big Tobacco. On the opening day of the trial last month, officers from the Canadian Border Services Agency showed up to inform Staniford he would be deported following the trial for over-staying his visa. The charge is accurate, and yet it was hard not to draw a connection to the industry and its close ally, the Harper Government, given the place and manner in which Staniford was delivered the news.

Staniford and Oddekalv are unquestionably the global salmon aquaculture industry’s boldest foes. Both employ provocative tactics that consistently get under the industry’s skin. Their partnership is the salmon activist equivalent of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro joining forces.

I’ve met Oddekalv on several occasions and spent a few days at his Green Warriors headquarters near Bergen, Norway in 2009 – while working on my film “Farmed Salmon Exposed”. To describe Oddekalv as a character is an understatement. The man is a larger-than-life eco-Viking, always happy to regale his guests with tales of his daring exploits against the industry and other environmental violators in his native Norway. 

Meanwhile, Staniford is the man who developed a global network of salmon farming critics through his former position as director of the Pure Salmon Campaign out of Washington, D.C. His quest against open net pen aquaculture has taken him to all the industry’s operations – in Norway, Chile, Scotland, Ireland, Canada and the US – many times over.

Staniford – who has also plied his trade in BC during an earlier stint with the Friends of Clayoquot Sound and before that in Scotland –  decamped again to BC a year and a half ago, as the province was developing into the front line of the battle over salmon aquaculture. But in the course of that time, he’s gone from the director of a well-funded global campaign to guerrilla-style warrior with few resources, surviving mostly on donations from supporters (in recent weeks, his phenomenally successful legal defense fundraising campaign has netted some $50,000 in public donations).

Partnering with Oddekalv provides a major boost to Staniford’s work. Despite his comparably daring campaign tactics, Oddekalv runs a well-oiled operation – offering Staniford resources he has lacked in recent years. For Oddekalv – perhaps the only major environmental leader who would dream of hiring Staniford right now – the activist from Liverpool may prove a valuable catch. The two men’s tactical styles are a good fit – and Staniford brings to the Green Warriors of Norway a global perspective and rolodex to match, not to mention his unrelenting determination to take down the industry.

Staniford’s trial is due to conclude next week, after which he will be escorted out of the country at the end of February.

And from there, it will be very interesting to see what mischief these two salmon rebels make for the industry back home.

Share

Willful Blindness and Sick Salmon – Lessons from Cohen Commission

Oceans, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, , , ,
Share

The mystery of the disappearing wild salmon may be closer to being solved due to the reconvened Cohen Commission and the extraordinary three days of hearings held in December, 2011. As earlier testimony revealed, many environmental factors affect the survival of wild salmon but imported diseases from the aquaculture industry may be the largest single cause of their decline. A plausible scenario now explains how these diseases could have arrived in our West Coast ecology.

Evidence now confirms that government policy supports the salmon farming industry, and that the industry has been willing to exploit this advantage to win regulatory concessions for its economic gain – in the words of one Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) official, the industry seemed “to dictate” policy. These concessions included relaxed importation, inspection and quarantine of Atlantic salmon eggs, and inadequate supervision of fish health.

Summary statements written by Gregory McDade and Lisa Glowaki, two of the lawyers representing Alexandra Morton at the inquiry, describe how DFO failed to pursue evidence indicating that ISAv was in wild salmon, despite an independent 2004 test that suggested all Cultus Lake sockeye were infected. “Instead it buried the results completely for seven years,” notes the summary, and “decided to not test any further wild salmon. This reaction is not consistent with the scientific method or a precautionary approach – rather it shows action of a political nature – denial and suppression of an inconvenient fact. In legal terms, it is known as willful blindness, also characterized in some circumstances as gross negligence.” This opinion is reinforced by DFO’s failure to submit any ISAv documentation to the Commission.

McDade and Glowaki suggest that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) was also implicated in this scheme of “willful blindness”. It had no interest in the well-being of wild salmon per se; its mandate was to monitor diseases and promote the economic value of food products. Fish diseases were inconveniences that complicated this commercial objective. ISAv was a reportable infection that would have alerted trade partners and the international community to risk, thereby incurring trade damage. “Safe trade” is the subject of testimony given by Dr. Kim Klotins, a senior CFIA official, to Krista Robertson, a lawyer acting for First Nations:

Robertson: “But is it also part of the mandate of the CFIA to ensure that… trade interests of Canadian companies or companies operating in Canada such as Norwegian fish farm companies, are not harmed by any kind of finding or allegation of disease?”

Dr. Klotins: “So if, let’s say, we do find ISA in B.C. and all of a sudden markets are closed, our role [CFIA] is then to try to renegotiate or negotiate market access to those countries. Now what it will be is a matter of they’ll let us know what the requirements are. We’ll let them know what we can do and whether we can meet that market access. If we can’t meet it, then there will be no trade basically.”

In other words, the discovery of ISAv in BC wild or farmed salmon could be an economic disaster that could even end trade in fish products. The CFIA didn’t want to find ISAv, and the evidence suggests it took active measures to confiscate fish samples that indicated ISAv was here. DFO – which supported the salmon farming industry – didn’t want to find ISAv either, and took active measures to hide findings and suppress research that would have exposed it. And the salmon farming industry certainly didn’t want to discover ISAv in its brood stock or net-pens – such a discovery would have had devastating environmental, market and public relations ramifications.

So, why did salmon farmers not find ISAv in their testing of more than 4,700 samples of farmed fish? The sole veterinarian testing their fish was Dr. Gary Marty, who noted more than 1,100 instances of lesions that were commensurate with ISAv, but he always recorded negative results for the viral infection. The industry, therefore, could confidently announce, as it frequently did, “that the ISA virus has never been found in British Columbia” (Times-Colonist, Dec. 16/11).

McDade and Glowaki explain this puzzle. First, not all ISAv strains are lethal so salmon farms might not notice high mortality. Like an influenza, it can exist as a low level infection that only becomes virulent when it mutates – particularly in high population densities at fish farms and hatcheries. But ISAv does impair fish health – especially wild fish in stressful survival conditions – and it leaves identifiable cellular markers. This is what the genomic specialists Drs. Kristi Miller, Fredrick Kibenge and Are Nylund found in their independent sampling of wild salmon tissue – they couldn’t find it in farmed salmon because the industry thwarted efforts to test these fish.

Was the salmon farming industry concealing evidence of ISAv? Not exactly. The following is the McDade and Glowaki technical explanation: “The evidence is now clear that Dr. Marty was conducting PCR tests with no confirmed validity. His PCR test was developed in-house, by a master’s student. This methodology used a primer that was different from that approved by the OIE or by the Moncton lab. It was a primer that had never been through the validation process, nor even apparently a peer-reviewed publication. Dr. Kibenge testified that in his opinion this test would not be sensitive to finding ISA.” So the “self-invented” test had no validity and “in our respectful submission, this ‘non-disclosure’ is tantamount to deliberate deception”. Since the salmon farming industry didn’t want to find ISAv, DFO had chosen to be “willfully blind” by relying only on the invalid testing of this single lab, and the CFIA was contented to avoid the complexities of discovering ISAv, no such disease was ever found by anyone responsible for detecting it.

The ISAv evidence will eventually be weighed by Judge Bruce Cohen. But the virus is now in the realm of public awareness, and the seismic effects could eventually shake the salmon farming industry, the wild fishery, and the government agencies that were supposed to be safeguarding an invaluable marine ecology.

Share