Facing a sea lice gauntlet, and maybe a dam

The catastrophe doesn’t seem to concern Tories, Grits. In fact, they don’t want to know.

The NDP tread where the Conservatives and Liberals fear to go as NDP Fisheries Critic Peter Julian and MP hopeful Fin Donnelly call for an independent judicial inquiry into the collapse of the Fraser River sockeye.

It should happen. It must happen. And it won’t happen.

On reason it won’t is that Fisheries Minister Gail Shea wouldn’t know a sockeye from a mud shark. Another is that the fish farmers contribute handsomely to Conservative and Liberal party funds. The third reason I’ll share in a moment.

Bumbling detectives

The sockeye situation is ludicrous. We know they’re gone but we don’t know all the reasons. However, we do know one reason — the migrating sockeye smolts (salmon babies) must run the gauntlet of the Broughton Archipelago fish farms, and the sea lice from those cages kill them. But fish farmers are contributors to the pockets of both governments. And the claims of independent scientists are ignored.

We also know that some smolts are eaten by escaped Atlantic salmon. What we don’t know is whether there are other causes when the smolts are maturing on the high seas. Indeed, in spite of what government lackeys and lickspittles are saying, we don’t even know if the high seas kill any appreciable amount. In blaming ocean predators and conditions, the lickspittles and company men reason that “because we don’t believe that lice from farms and escaped Atlantic salmon cause very many, if any deaths, we assume that these deaths are from causes unknown.” If police detectives reasoned like that, the jails would all be empty.

Moreover, the convenient “high seas” argument ignores the fact that pink, chum and sockeye from rivers not contaminated with fish farms, or in Alaska which bans fish farms, migrate to the same “high seas” and returned in abundant — and in some cases record — numbers.

Rules of science and law ignored

It must be noted that the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), First Nations Summit and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations resolutions all oppose fish farms. Moreover, in 2007 Marine Harvest’s largest shareholder, billionaire John Fredriksen, while fishing on the famous River Alta, told a reporter from the Altaposten Newspaper, “I’m concerned about the future of wild salmon. Move salmon farms out of the path of wild salmon.”

There are two related rules of science and law prevailing here. The science rule is the “precautionary principle” which states that if a policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that the harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate taking the action.

The legal rule is that he who alleges has the burden of proof.

In short, the onus of proving the lack of adverse environmental impact rests squarely on the fish farmers — but, with thanks to former Liberal ministers like John Van Dongen, they have passed this onus onto the public. As a result, the task has fallen to courageous citizens like Alexandra Morton and a plethora of independent scientists who support her findings. The fish farmers have had a free ride throughout.

The media has been shamefully silent, with the occasional exception of Stephen Hume in the Vancouver Sun and the more frequent interventions of his brother Mark in the Globe and Mail. The last electronic media person to take on this issue was me — and in 2005 I was fired. I believe it was because I fought against these environmental nightmares.

The dam truth

Here is the third reason nothing will be done.

When jurisdiction for fish farms was given back by the province to the feds by a recent court case, fish farmers were assured that it would be business as usual. In fact, Minister Gail Shea went to a huge conference of fish farmers in Norway and assured them that Canada wanted even more of them. The bottom line is that the federal government doesn’t give a fiddler’s fart about west coast fisheries and hasn’t for decades. And there’s a reason.

Since 1871, when B.C. joined Canada, the salmon fishery has been a gigantic political pain in the ass to the federal government. When I was the environment minister back at the beginning of the Christian Era, I studied the issue and found that year after year there were problems, and year after year the government fumbled them. A good example was some years ago when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) decided that there were too many boats chasing too few fish and started to buy back fish boats. A child could have seen that the remaining boats would increase their capacity — they did — and the problem remained.

All the while, there has been salvation looming on the horizon rising from the mists of time — the proposed Moran Dam on the Fraser River north of Lytton. Here’s what I wrote on The Tyee on April 24 of 2006: “[this] proposed dam (Moran) was all the rage with the post World War II Liberals, especially Defence Minister Andrew MacNaughton.”

But it didn’t stop there. Bruce Hutchison, in his otherwise marvelous book The Fraser, painted a paradise built with all that power. W.A.C. Bennett was all for the idea in 1967, but outdoors people made such a fuss about the concomitant loss of salmon that he backed off.

Fish in the path of ‘progress’

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans was stripped of outspoken scientists back in 1986 when the two governments and Alcan agreed on the Kemano Completion project and DFO did what the politicians told them to do. That culture remains.

The only thing holding back this project is the migration of sockeye (mainly) that pass through the Fraser River past Lytton to northern spawning beds. A huge dam! Wouldn’t it be wonderful! Power galore and no more of those damned salmon! If through a happy combination of fish farms and lack of care about habitat we can wipe out those salmon runs! Indeed, if we play our cards right, the only salmon left will be in wilderness rivers, left to satisfy wealthy fishermen on expensive fishing safaris. When that happy day comes, the DFO and the federal government will be rid of this millstone and there will be oodles of power to sell to California so that swimming pools can be kept warm!

Yes, give us a judicial inquiry

If the federal government cared at all about B.C. they would take on MP Peter Julian’s suggestion. But it doesn’t go far enough. There should be a judicial hearing into the Fraser sockeye collapse. I would suggest that the enquiry should be wider. However, we’ve learned that the wider the mandate, the more paid days for lawyers — whose glacier-like pace when being paid per diem is notorious.

There are political considerations. If the NDP can combine the fish farm issue with the rape of rivers by the likes of General Electric, they could win seats that are usually Liberal or Conservative. The latter know that the NDP cannot form a government, but they could decide who holds power.

What a sad thing to contemplate. Neither the Liberal nor Conservative parties give a damn about B.C.’s fish or our rivers.

Why should they? In this country, if it isn’t happening in Ontario or Quebec, it isn’t happening.

A lifelong contrarian

Those who complain I’m not even-handed don’t get my purpose.

I read comments to this column regularly and both enjoy them and profit from them. In my last article on Federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea there were concerns expressed that I was not giving equal time to both sides of the issue so I thought I might set out what my mandate is (self-made of course).

To start with, I’m not a journalist in the ordinary narrow construction of that word. The late Denny Boyd once said I was a cross examiner — a misplaced barrister, so to speak. I agree. I’m not an ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ broadcaster and writer; instead, I am an editorialist. I don’t report news; I give my take on it and invite response.

Last week’s subject was the West Coast fishery and the role of the Fisheries minister. That anyone would argue that it’s her job to promote aquaculture generally and fish farms in particular astonishes me. I quoted former DFO scientist Otto Langer who set out the minister’s duties in stark terms, namely “to conserve and protect fish habitat”. Surely anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of English would understand that statutory mandate clearly excludes shilling for any industry.

If Minister Shea goes to aquaculture conferences surely it should be to admonish the industry and urge them to clean up their act not gush over how important their industry was to Canada.

But back to my mandate. As an editorialist I see it my duty to hold the establishment’s feet to the fire. I say “prove it” when government or industry make promises. I’m a lifelong contrarian. When a government, industry or trade union tells a story my inclination is to say (to myself, of course) “barnyard droppings” or its more earthy equivalent.

Opinion informed by facts

It’s astonishing how often the establishment can’t deal with questions put to them. In that regard, let’s look at the fish farm business, which, for me, started in 2000 when caged Atlantic salmon were escaping and getting into B.C. rivers and streams. My listeners of the day will remember that Dr. John Volpe, a noted fish biologist, and his crew were diving some rivers on Vancouver Island and were finding hundreds of escaped Atlantics. In the meantime, one cabinet minister named John Van Dongen stoutly maintained that only three Atlantic salmon had been found in our rivers — only to be contradicted by his colleague, the late Stan Hagen, who said there were only two!

Then marine biology researcher Alexandra Morton started her examination of the relationship between huge swarms of sea lice attracted to the huge number of hosts in the fish farms with migrating pink and chum salmon. The provincial minister of Agriculture, Food and Fish and the federal minster of Fisheries and Oceans, one would have thought, would have been there alongside Morton getting the truth by scientific tests — but this was from the truth. In fact, the DFO threatened her with jail for illegal sampling!

As fishery experts from Norway, Scotland, Ireland and of course Canada came into the debate supporting Morton’s findings and certifying her methodology, the ministries mounted a stirring defence of the industry and — without a single solitary independent fisheries biologist to support them — said that the science was on their side! I traveled to Galway, Ireland, and met Dr. Patrick Gargan, head of the fish lice program on the west coast of that nation. He and his staff were utterly astonished at the Canadian and B.C. governments. One of his colleagues looked at me and asked, “Can’t you people read out there? Have you not seen the documented evidence of sea lice devastating wild salmon (salmo salar) and sea trout (salmo trutta)– both of which are much bigger when they migrate past the fish cages than are pink salmon and chum smolts?”

As the independent science firmed up, the governments still raised ridiculous explanations for diminishing wild salmon.

In praise of the ‘precautionary principle’

Let me pause here to observe that both governments placed the onus of proof on the wrong shoulders. A firm, but totally ignored, rule for doing things that might hurt the environment is the ‘precautionary principle’ and here is how it’s generally stated: The ‘precautionary principle’ is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the environment — in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue — the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

This means, of course, that the onus of proof that sea lice damage migrating fish rests upon the farmers — not Alexandra Morton and aging columnists.

I’ve strayed a bit from my point so let’s return to it. My job as an editorialist or, if you prefer, a ‘common scold’ is to apply the ‘precautionary principle’ and hold those who would use the environment to demonstrate that they will do no harm. In doing that I must, of course, examine all the evidence including that presented by the government. If, however, the only government evidence comes from public servants, I must weigh evidence against that which is not tainted by government money. I must also compare government ‘evidence’ to that of independent scientists — which I have often done.

So, gentle readers, if you’re looking for an evenhanded journalist to whom everything is ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ I advise you to listen to broadcasters and read ‘journalists’ who use that standard — a standard where the evil is on the same footing as the good.

Conservative Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Gail Shea

As BC’s sockeye disaster unfolded, she flogged fish farms in Norway.

Here is the story from the Black Press, scarcely known for left wing tendencies –

The Fraser River sockeye run is winding up and millions of missing salmon still haven’t shown up.

The Pacific Salmon Commission estimates the run size at 1.37 million sockeye – the worst on record and significantly below the last two dismal years, which fishermen had hoped would not be repeated.

Observers see the result as a sign of ecological catastrophe.

And there’s little hope more of the forecast run of 10.5 million sockeye will materialize.

Moreover, as we have long known, several runs of Pink salmon are near extinction in the Broughton Archipelago.

In the meantime, at the height of the collapse of the world renowned Fraser River sockeye, where was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Gail Shea?

She along with 50 government financed delegates were in  Trondheim Norway attending the world’s largest Aquaculture Conference on behalf of the Government of Canada! When asked by filmmaker Damien Gillis why she was there she said it was because she “supports aquaculture in Canada which is an important part of our economy”. When Gillis tried to video the Canadian delegation he was refused by the Canadian DFO Director for Information because he wouldn’t tell her how he intended to use the film!

Let’s lay some facts on the table here. Sea Lice from salmon farms are killing our migrating salmon including sockeye from the Fraser. As Dr John Volpe, a noted fish biologist  recently made clear. the world’s independent fish biologists “spoke with one voice” and that the impact connection of lice from fish farms on wild salmon is “indisputable”. Minister Gail Shea, on her junket to Trondheim demonstrated beyond doubt that not only did she know nothing of this west coast catastrophe but didn’t care to learn. So we have from the leading scientists of the world that the connection of fish farm sea lice and wild salmon is indisputable” while the Minister in charge uncritically supports the fish farm industry. Clearly, to her, we’re just typical BC bitchers trying to interfere with the legitimate work of government.

Let’s turn now to Otto Langer a highly respected scientist with DFO who, in 2002, quit in disgust after 32 years when he could no longer stand the department forgetting its mandate and shilling for fish farms, He talks of the duty of DFO under the legislation “to conserve and protect fish habitat”. Mr. Langer pointed out that the DFO policy would not only condemn our salmon to extinction but also wipe out BC icons such as bears and eagles.

Now let’s move back to Minister Shea. Some years ago the DFO, which was responsible for aquaculture, turned this responsibility over to the provincial Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fish who made an ongoing balls-up of their new mandate. Earlier this year, Alexandra Morton, who has led the fight to move fish farms out of the path of migrating salmon, won a landmark court decision which sent the responsibility back to DFO. Ms Morton said that she just wanted the DFO to “enforce the law”. And this gets to the meat of the matter.

It is NOT the job of the DFO to promote aquaculture but to protect Canada’s fisheries. If Canada is to promote businesses – and there are many deserving of promotion – it is the sworn duty of the Industry Ministry to ensure that his promoted industries, as a condition precedent, obey the law very much including those which are or should be administered by DFO.

The Ministry in charge of the DFO is the cop in this exercise. It is her job to ensure that any industry which affects Canada’s fisheries obey the strictures of the Fisheries Act. That is her sworn duty.

We are bovine masses in this country. One in awhile we raise our faces out of our beer glasses, divert out attention momentarily from the sitcom and mumble “yes I suppose the Fisheries Minister shouldn’t be shilling for fish farms, now where were we?”  Moreover, as we plod our weary way to the polls – 50% of us that is – we will vote the government back in or elect a new one which we know will change nothing.

What other country calling itself a democracy would throw peaceful protesters in jail after pepper spraying them as we did during APEC Conference in 1997? (One law student was physically abused and thrown in jail for carrying a cloth sign saying “Free Speech” and “Democracy.”)

More to the point and up to date, what country would spend a billion dollars making sure that protesters at the Olympics would be kept out of sight of those protested against thus meaning – and this is the main point – no TV cameras could show that everything wasn’t “all things bright and beautiful” (in the words of the syrupy Anglican jingle) – amongst those paying for this extravaganza?

With this national attitude, is it any wonder then that our fisheries are destroyed under the watchful eyes of those set in authority over us when they know we won’t do anything about it? I’ve been part of a good many protests and for the most part they are made up of the same young people (with one notable exception) each time.

I leave this epistle with this question – to all of you British Columbians who care about our salmon, see it as the soul of our province, who are pained at the sight of what the governments are doing – what the Hell are you going to do about it?

Are you too busy to support Alexandra Morton, the Wilderness Committee, the Save Our Rivers Society and others who are carrying this fight on your behalf?

Will you not challenge the bloody liars that lead you? Will you not take this fight personally and fight as if these fish were yours, which they are?

You might all, for starters, try joining a protest – you’ll find out that at least you have the satisfaction of trying.

To all British Columbians, if you don’t try you’re no better off sitting on your asses than are those in authority who have chosen the same position.

This is not an unusual situation. The last Fishery Minister who knew his brief was John Fraser who, unhappily, did not stay in the ministry long enough to locate the private loo.

When I was Environment Minister for BC many moons ago I researched the history of Ottawa and the Pacific Fishery. This history is festooned with short term solutions that lasted only until the next crisis. There were reports and studies galore.

Just one example. At one point the fishery was being over fished. The Minister then decided that there were too many boats chasing too many fish so he organized a buy back of licenses. The minister didn’t reckon with the ingenuity of man for in no time flat the boats that remained increased their capacity and we were back where we started!

The political bottom line is this – we will either elect the Tories, who won’t change, or the Liberals who won’t change or the NDP which has no power to change.

Next stop – a dam on the Fraser north of Lytton because there are no fish values to be concerned about.

Dr. Gordon Hartman

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.

Dr. Gordon Hartman is a member of the Save Our Rivers Society Board of Advisors