Vancouver Courier
for April 12, 1998

The pitfall in writing a piece based upon research and statistics is that apart from baseball fans - who'll read stats and obscure facts just for the fun of it - you'll bore most people to death. The ones you don't bore, didn't read past the first line.

The danger in writing in the impressionistic "don't trouble me with facts" mode is that it attracts lawyers' letters, nasty phone calls and frowns from editors - to say nothing of letters to the editor calling your ancestry into question. It's the latter which makes editors tolerant of factually challenged writers - letters are to a paper what BBM ratings are to the broadcaster, which is to say a lot.

A compromise for you. I'm going to be opinionated as hell but I'll throw some facts in as I go along.

I've long been nervous about fish farming in pens part of or connected to lakes, rivers, or the ocean. So have many others. The rouble is, most of the debate has between the stakeholders - dommercial and sports fisherman against the farm fishing lobby with some help from the environmentalist community.

I've done some broadcasting and writing on the subject but I've never taken a firm stand - until now. I think fish farming as practiced in B.C. is bad and will without question do serious harm.

Upon what evidence, you ask?

As I started to review my material I had a strong sense of deja vu. Where else had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans along with their corporate soul mate told everybody that there was naught to worry about?

Alcan! The Kemano Completion Project!

The theme of then Fisheries Minister Tom Siddon and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as they carefully steered the KCP past all hurdles, legal and environmental, was that while there was a risk, it was an acceptable risk. All manner of steps were to be taken by beloved old Uncle Alcan to shepherd the sockeye runs through what was to be only 13% of the Nechako so that the risks were really nothing to worry about.

Last week a cage of Atlantic Salmon broke releasing 30,000 fish into the wild. Greg Davignon (head of the Fish Farmers Association) is rather like the ruined bridge over the Rhone of the same name - his arguments don't make it across the gulf between self interest and logical consequences. He doesn't answer questions because he knows that he can't - so he raises doubts. He deals with concerns by saying that they probably won't be happen. About the huge fish escape Mr Davignon said that it was operator error and the first escape of the year. Very helpful.

He says that the 1997 Provincial Salmon Aquaculture Review found that it was unlikely that Atlantic salmon would cross breed with their Pacific cousins, that spawning is extremely unlikely and that competition for food is not a threat to wild stocks. (Really? What will they be eating then, Big Macs?)

Well, that's not quite what they said. They do consider cross breeding between Atlantics and Pacific salmon is extremely low though concede that cross breeding between caged Pacific Salmon and wild stock poses a real danger. As to escaped fish poaching on the feed on wild stock they said that this posed "little threat."

On the question of escaped Atlantics colonizing they believe this improbable but not impossible and noted cheerily that if it did happen, the colonies could probably be wiped out. (I suppose one must agree with the last statement as long as DFO is in charge because under their jurisdiction Pacific Salmon runs are regularly wiped out.)

Speaking of the DFO, their spokesman Dr John Davis had these encouraging words last August. "The Aquaculture industry poses a low level of risk to ... wild salmon populations. Escaped Atlantic Salmon are not thought to be having a significant impact on wild Pacific salmon."

Is fish farming a threat to wild stocks?

The answer is a clear unequivocal yes and I'll tell you why.

All answers by the industry and the DFO admit of a risk. How big it is can be debated but unarguably there's a risk.

Here's the rub. The only way you can contain a risk is to impose a time limit. If you have a revolver with 5 of the 6 chambers empty and you decide to pull the trigger but once, you might blow your brains out but it's more likely that you won't. If you decide, however, to keep pulling that trigger forever it's no longer a risk that you'll kill yourself, it's a certainty, A lead pipe cinch.

Whether its a "low level of risk", "improbable but not impossible" or whatever weasel words you choose, a risk is a risk. If it's to be taken forever more, it's no longer a risk but a sure thing.

There is a bullet in the chamber, folks.

Now it's only a matter of time.