Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: chris gadsden on October 30, 2012, 07:26:13 AM
-
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/Salmon+inquiry+final+report+will+made+public+Wednesday+Ottawa/7464908/story.html#ixzz2AlCcmNbv
-
For those that are planning on attending, the conference has been pushed back until 1:00 pm.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/31/cohen-commission-report-fraser-river-sockeye-decline_n_2048260.html
"Cohen recommends a 12-year freeze on the controversial practice of net-pen salmon farming around the Discovery Islands, on B.C.'s central coast, saying salmon farms have the potential to introduce disease to wild salmon."
-
More from the Executive Summary: http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/FinalReport/CohenCommissionFinalReport_Vol03_04.pdf#zoom=100
Mitigation measures should not be delayed in the absence of scientific certainty. Precautionary measures should focus on filling the knowledge
gaps and enabling DFO to adapt mitigation measures to new scientific information. It is appropriate to take measures to prevent any risk
of serious harm from increasing. For that reason, I recommend that there should be no increase to net-pen salmon farm production in the Discovery
Islands until September 30, 2020. I have chosen that date because DFO should by then be able to adequately assess the likelihood of net-pen salmon
farms causing serious harm to Fraser River sockeye. If, by that date, DFO cannot confidently say the risk of serious harm is minimal, it should then
prohibit all net-pen salmon farms from operating in the Discovery Islands. If DFO is satisfied before September 30, 2020, that the risk is more than
minimal, it should order a stop to net-pen salmon farming at that earlier date.
-
At last we have someone else saying the damage farms are doing, waiting for a response from the boys, Abby, Dave, SS,The Bass, etc. I wonder how they will digest this report, maybe they are working on it now. ::)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/31/bc-cohen-salmon-report-released.html
-
At last we have someone else saying the potential and possible damage farms are doing, waiting for a response from the boys, Abby, Dave, SS,The Bass, etc. I wonder how they will digest this report, maybe they are working on it now. ::)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/31/bc-cohen-salmon-report-released.html
Fixed it for ya Chris! I like what I heard about the need for funding for research ( Andrew, more money coming, but you knew that ...) I also appreciate that Mr. Cohen suggests this research should be be funded for another 2 sockeye cycles, 8 years... ; what do you think the chances are of that happening?
Still haven`t had time to read the entire document ... have you?
-
Absolute waste of money. 26 million to be precise. What about existing fish farms that are still effecting the environment . Thanks for nothin.
-
Fixed it for ya Chris! I like what I heard about the need for funding for research ( Andrew, more money coming, but you knew that ...) I also appreciate that Mr. Cohen suggests this research should be be funded for another 2 sockeye cycles, 8 years... ; what do you think the chances are of that happening?
Still haven`t had time to read the entire document ... have you?
Getting desperate that for sure when you change what someone else has written, that's bad but shows the gang is now grasping at straws to stoop that low.. ::) ??? Working close to the door again. ;D ;D ;D
-
:D
-
Pretty well says to the bad old practice fish farmers " don't let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya". ;D Time to do it another safer way.
-
It took a $26 million dollar study to say what we, (using a bit of common sense) have been saying all along. Hopefully Cohen's recommendations are implemented.
-
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/bcs-salmon-farmers-support-continued-research-fish-health
-
Just curious, has any of you actually read the Findings chapter of the report?
-
I am reading through the entire report, yep.
I am loving the sounds of crickets coming from the apologists.
-
Which ones in particular Jon?
-
At last we have someone else saying the damage farms are doing, waiting for a response from the boys, Abby, Dave, SS,The Bass, etc. I wonder how they will digest this report, maybe they are working on it now. ::)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/31/bc-cohen-salmon-report-released.html
Sorry you were waiting awhile for a response from people such as myself; however, seeing as it is Halloween, enjoying it with my 19 month daughter appeared to take more priority over being one of the first to post a hasty response. To digest a report this long won't be done in one night, but I am sure you digested all you needed to know in a few minutes.
-
Sorry you were waiting awhile for a response from people such as myself; however, seeing as it is Halloween, enjoying it with my 19 month daughter appeared to take more priority over being one of the first to post a hasty response. To digest a report this long won't be done in one night, but I am sure you digested all you needed to know in a few minutes.
This will help you digest part of it. ;D ;D
http://thecanadian.org/item/1791-video-justice-cohen-gets-tough-on-fish-farms-inquiry-sockeye-report-released-damien-gillis
-
More for SS.
http://donstaniford.typepad.com/my-blog/2012/11/global-news-update-justice-cohen-gets-toughfreeze-on-farmscross-appeal-vs-cermaq.html
-
I hope everyone takes the time to at least read the recommendations section and not rely on special interest bloggers for their opinions.
I like the report and recommendations...they take a balanced and precautionary approach, come to the correct supportable conclusions, and take aim at DFO and the Harper government where they have gone wrong. Cohen also points an indirect spotlight on where political inference has subverted DFO responsibility for its core mandate (aboriginal co-management, aquaculture, habitat managment).
But I fear Harper will largely sweep this under the rug; perhaps picking out areas where they can make further cuts in DFO and ignoring any recommendations that might require restoration of funding to the department. It seems Justice Cohen thinks the same; he recommends an independent body to monitor the government's implementation of his recommendations.
-
Sorry you were waiting awhile for a response from people such as myself; however, seeing as it is Halloween, enjoying it with my 19 month daughter appeared to take more priority over being one of the first to post a hasty response. To digest a report this long won't be done in one night, but I am sure you digested all you needed to know in a few minutes.
I'm not surprised that the feedlots have been a little slow in releasing their spin on the Cohen report. Apparently they are having a difficult time finding anything in the report that supports the propaganda they have been feeding the public over the years......
-
This kinda sums it up.......
"I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed to Fraser River sockeye salmon from salmon farms is serious or irreversible."
-
I hope everyone takes the time to at least read the recommendations section and not rely on special interest bloggers for their opinions.
I like the report and recommendations...they take a balanced and precautionary approach, come to the correct supportable conclusions, and take aim at DFO and the Harper government where they have gone wrong. Cohen also points an indirect spotlight on where political inference has subverted DFO responsibility for its core mandate (aboriginal co-management, aquaculture, habitat managment).
But I fear Harper will largely sweep this under the rug; perhaps picking out areas where they can make further cuts in DFO and ignoring any recommendations that might require restoration of funding to the department. It seems Justice Cohen thinks the same; he recommends an independent body to monitor the government's implementation of his recommendations.
Agreed.
-
Complete press conference.
http://youtu.be/qt49I2fadhg
-
Salmon farm part starts at 13:35.
Glad Cohen sees the problems of FF that we are faced with, not like the minority here. ::)
-
There was "no smoking gun". Of course not, the probability of any single "stressor" being the sole causal agent for the decline was and is infinitesimal. And Yes, the Report did indeed point at a myriad of factors that together most likely worked together in a cumulative effort to create the situation being studied.
Although Cohen did not "rank" these factors according to their level of threat potential, he did make some rather strong statements regarding aquaculture:
"In his three-volume report on the future of the sockeye fishery released Wednesday, Justice Bruce Cohen focuses 11 of his 75 recommendations on the province's salmon-farming industry, addressing issues like government management, the siting of open net-pen farms and the need for more research."
"While Cohen found there was no "smoking gun," no single event or stressor, responsible for the decline between 1992 and 2009, he found Fraser River sockeye faced a "likelihood of harm" from disease and pathogens on farms, especially in the Discovery Islands, located northeast of Campbell River, B.C., between Vancouver Island and the province's mainland."
And yes, he does indeed call for research to begin immediately to determine to what, if any extent the farms pose a problem. Something with which I strongly concur. However he follows by suggesting we follow the Precautionary Principle in this case (something many believe should have been adhered to well before the latest expansion was allowed to occur):
"In the Discovery Islands, the department should not issue any new open net-pen licences, cap production and limit the maximum duration of a licence to one year, starting immediately and at least until Sept. 30, 2020, said Cohen.
If the minister determines open net-pen farms pose more than a minimal risk to Fraser River sockeye, the farms should be ordered to cease operations, he said."
(Above quotes: http://www.globalnews.ca/report+into+decli...5508/story.html (http://"http://www.globalnews.ca/report+into+decline+of+bcs+sockeye+fishery+critical+of+salmon+farming/6442745508/story.html") )
Which also ties in with his apparent perception that there is more than likely reason for concern here:
"I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed to Fraser River sockeye salmon from salmon farms is serious or irreversible"
All of that said, aquaculture was indeed but one of many factors the Report considers. And I strongly agree with a poster on another forum: "the findings are a damning indictment of the politicization of the DFO and the lack of adequate funding for it to carry out it's mandate" :
"It is "regrettable" that the government did not wait to see the conclusions of the inquiry before making changes to the federal Fisheries Act, Cohen told the media Wednesday.
"The amendments to the Fisheries Act cause me concern," ... "I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the legislative amendments in Bill C-38 lower the standard of protection for Fraser River sockeye salmon."
Contrary to his recommendations to protect salmon habitat, Cohen said the amendments contained in the Conservatives' omnibus budget legislation appear to expand the circumstances where fish habitat can be harmed.
"DFO's first priority must be the health of wild stocks," Cohen said repeatedly during a news conference."
http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/canada/sal...5004/story.html (http://"http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/canada/salmon+inquiry+report+skewers+ottawa+approach+to+saving+fraser+river+fishery/6442745004/story.html")
Fisheries and Oceans Canada should no longer be mandated to promote the industry and farmed salmon as a product but should act in accordance with its paramount regulatory objective of conserving wild fish
http://www.globalnews.ca/report+into+decli...5508/story.html (http://"http://www.globalnews.ca/report+into+decline+of+bcs+sockeye+fishery+critical+of+salmon+farming/6442745508/story.html")
"Former B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen took aim at the federal government Wednesday in his much-anticipated report on the decline of Fraser River sockeye. He said he was “troubled” by recent amendments to the environmental process and the Fisheries Act by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.
“Many experts have emphasized the importance of protecting fish habitat, promoting biodiversity and adopting ecosystem-based management practices,” said Cohen. “However, the recent amendments to the Fisheries Act appear to be taking (the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) in a very different direction.”
He also noted “concern” over staff cuts in DFO’s Pacific Region habitat management program. The Conservatives cut $79 million, or 5.8 per cent, from DFO’s total budget this year.
In particular, Cohen noted amendments to the Fisheries Act shift emphasis from fish and habitat protection to the protection of fisheries. That change lowers the standard of protection for Fraser River sockeye salmon, Cohen said.
Cohen called on the federal government to properly fund and implement DFO’s own 2005 wild salmon and 1986 habitat policies.
The wild salmon policy is meant to restore and maintain healthy and diverse salmon populations and their habitats “for the enjoyment of the people of Canada in perpetuity.” But Cohen said he has no confidence the policy will ever be implemented without dedicated funding.
Cohen also concluded DFO is not achieving its goal of a net gain in productive fish habitat, or of “no net loss” of habitat, under the 1986 habitat policy."
http://www.vancouversun.com/mobile/busines...7848/story.html (http://"http://www.vancouversun.com/mobile/business/news/Salmon+inquiry+commissioner+critical+Fisheries+changes/7477848/story.html")
“You can’t have healthy wild fish if you don’t have healthy habitat.”
DFO’s first priority should be the health of the wild stocks and aquaculture should be removed from DFO’s mandate, Cohen recommended.
“When DFO has simultaneous mandates to conserve wild stocks and promote the salmon farming industry, there are circumstances when it finds itself in conflict of interest because of divided loyalties,” he said.
Changes in salmon management are needed and DFO needs to conduct more research as there is a lack of data, the report says.
http://www.timescolonist.com/Report+calls+...7997/story.html (http://"http://www.timescolonist.com/Report+calls+freeze+fish+farms+Vancouver+Island/7477997/story.html")
Most who have witnessed DFO's particular form of salmon "management" will obviously agree with Cohen - He makes some rather damning points regarding DFO and the Harpo Government's apparent disregard for the former's mandate and function. And most will also likely concur in that Something MUST Be Done to rectify that situation. I fear however that those two entities are scrambling to pay little more than Lip Service to Cohen's findings, and that his ideal reflected in the below statement will be all but ignored...
“I urge the federal government, in the interests of conserving the iconic species of salmon, to heed my findings and to implement these recommendations,” Cohen said at a news conference. “If implementing the recommendations is delayed, the ongoing threats to the stocks will make remedial action all the more challenging when it does begin.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/mobile/busines...7848/story.html (http://"http://www.vancouversun.com/mobile/business/news/Salmon+inquiry+commissioner+critical+Fisheries+changes/7477848/story.html")
The government did not commit to implementing any of the recommendations, and Kamp defended the Fisheries Act changes.
"What we think the amendments to the Fisheries Act ... did is allow us to focus on the protection of the fisheries that Canadians value — commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries." ::)
http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/canada/sal...5004/story.html (http://"http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/canada/salmon+inquiry+report+skewers+ottawa+approach+to+saving+fraser+river+fishery/6442745004/story.html")
In closing this post, I suggest that Cohen is right: DFO NEEDS to be re-vamped, NEEDS to be adequately resourced, NEEDS a Dedicated Focus on Habitat and Science and that the Harpo government NEEDS to stop both reducing the level/competency of our Scientists, and muzzling them when their findings are counter to their own ongoing Agenda.
And while the aquaculture industry represents but one factor in the Report, I suggest Cohen's findings and concerns in this regard are well founded and should be adhered to: Precaution FIRST, Research second, and Reaction Swift should "the minister determine open net-pen farms pose more than a minimal risk to Fraser River sockeye".
Cheers,
Nog
-
Wonderful post Nog.
Lets see what the 3 or 4 remaining pro FF chaps here have to say now but I think they will soon disappear like the Bass who saw the writing on the wall a few weeks ago. The air has certainly been knocked out of their sails, fittingly on Halloween. ;D ;D ;D
-
This report judge Cohen released is all fine and dandy, but will they do anything about it . I wouldn't trust this conservative government with doing anything. You have to make it an election issue for them to sit up and pay attention.
-
Wonderful post Nog.
Lets see what the 3 or 4 remaining pro FF chaps here have to say now but I think they will soon disappear like the Bass who saw the writing on the wall a few weeks ago. The air has certainly been knocked out of their sails, fittingly on Halloween. ;D ;D ;D
Sorry Chris, nothing has changed other than taxpayers are out 26 million dollars. The recommendation was more research; go figure. Wonder what that 26 m could have done for habitat restoration or further sockeye physiology studies relating to warmer Fraser River water temperatures?
I know you will not read the report; why bother as you long ago decided your stance on this issue ... so do what you do so well; pick the parts you like and post away ;D.
Good comment StillAqua.
-
This report judge Cohen released is all fine and dandy, but will they do anything about it . I wouldn't trust this conservative government with doing anything. You have to make it an election issue for them to sit up and pay attention.
Well I agree, it's all about public pressure. I havent seen much media coverage; I have seen more about the us election on Canadian news ???
-
Salmon farm part starts at 13:35.
Glad Cohen sees the problems of FF that we are faced with, not like the minority here. ::)
Seriously? Encouraging people to fast forward in a non-source news report to the part you want them to see? C'mon! I expected better of you!
I've managed to make my way through about 200 pages so far. A few on this thread (Nog, StillAqua) have made good points. Hopefully the rest of you aren't so myopic that you remain fixated on the one and only thing you had already made your mind up on ages ago.
The most obvious thing to me to come out of the recommendations is that Fraser sockeye are dealing with MANY issues. Keeping all the focus on just one of them is doing a disservice to the conservation of these fish (my point for months on here).
I like the approach Cohen took with the fish farms. Gather the data that will be required to make informed assessments, and go from there. Employ the precautionary approach (not the irrational anti-everything approach), and gather the data to make informed, conservative decisions. I think my Diet Dr Pepper came out my nose when he recommended DFO relinquish its role as the regulatory authority for aquaculture. Remind me who it was that brought the court case about that had that file transferred from the Province to the Feds????
Cohen's take on the co-management structure that DFO has employed was an eye-opener. Speaking as someone who has seen the warts of the current system from the inside, I agree 100% with his take on that (trying to satisfy everyone, and satisfying no one) although it will be a difficult pill to swallow when it comes to public perception on that one.
I found several of his recommendations and assessments to be quite flawed and inaccurate, or at least out of date. Much of the evidence he heard that did not pertain directly to Fraser sockeye seemed to steer his recommendations in areas where it was not applicable. His comments regarding enhanced sockeye creating direct harvest risks for wild fish was puzzling to me. Yes, for many years harvest of Weaver Creek sockeye decimated other co-migrating runs (like Cultus), but this hasn't happened for years .This is definitely an issue with many other salmon species; Fraser sockeye, it's a non-issue (in my opinion).
Hopefully a fraction of the $26M will be made available to actually implement some of the recommendations. Many of the things he recommends are already occurring and have been for a while, albeit slowly (WSP implementation, fish health monitoring etc).
I'll dive back into it this weekend. I'd like to actually read it first hand instead of formulating my opinion based on a short sound byte from a partisan blog.
-
Seriously? Encouraging people to fast forward in a non-source news report to the part you want them to see? C'mon! I expected better of you!
I've managed to make my way through about 200 pages so far. A few on this thread (Nog, StillAqua) have made good points. Hopefully the rest of you aren't so myopic that you remain fixated on the one and only thing you had already made your mind up on ages ago.
The most obvious thing to me to come out of the recommendations is that Fraser sockeye are dealing with MANY issues. Keeping all the focus on just one of them is doing a disservice to the conservation of these fish (my point for months on here).
I like the approach Cohen took with the fish farms. Gather the data that will be required to make informed assessments, and go from there. Employ the precautionary approach (not the irrational anti-everything approach), and gather the data to make informed, conservative decisions. I think my Diet Dr Pepper came out my nose when he recommended DFO relinquish its role as the regulatory authority for aquaculture. Remind me who it was that brought the court case about that had that file transferred from the Province to the Feds????
Cohen's take on the co-management structure that DFO has employed was an eye-opener. Speaking as someone who has seen the warts of the current system from the inside, I agree 100% with his take on that (trying to satisfy everyone, and satisfying no one) although it will be a difficult pill to swallow when it comes to public perception on that one.
I found several of his recommendations and assessments to be quite flawed and inaccurate, or at least out of date. Much of the evidence he heard that did not pertain directly to Fraser sockeye seemed to steer his recommendations in areas where it was not applicable. His comments regarding enhanced sockeye creating direct harvest risks for wild fish was puzzling to me. Yes, for many years harvest of Weaver Creek sockeye decimated other co-migrating runs (like Cultus), but this hasn't happened for years .This is definitely an issue with many other salmon species; Fraser sockeye, it's a non-issue (in my opinion).
Hopefully a fraction of the $26M will be made available to actually implement some of the recommendations. Many of the things he recommends are already occurring and have been for a while, albeit slowly (WSP implementation, fish health monitoring etc).
I'll dive back into it this weekend. I'd like to actually read it first hand instead of formulating my opinion based on a short sound byte from a partisan blog.
:o Everyone has a right to their opinion of course as do you. Anyone that has followed Cohen closely will of course, be reading the 3 volumes from start to finish as will I and it will will take some time, some people may have more time than others to do so. It took 2 years for Cohen to complete the report so we have some time to digest it all properly.
The complete sound bite is a good start and I mentioned the FF part as this is the main topic on this section of FWR. Of course Nog gave an excellent recap as many will not read the full report like you and I.
Sorry I upset you. :-\
-
http://www.vancouversun.com/Sockeye+report+balanced+salmon+farmers/7488176/story.html
Spinning bullbisquits into a blanket.....
-
:o Everyone has a right to their opinion of course as do you. Anyone that has followed Cohen closely will of course, be reading the 3 volumes from start to finish as will I and it will will take some time, some people may have more time than others to do so. It took 2 years for Cohen to complete the report so we have some time to digest it all properly.
The complete sound bite is a good start and I mentioned the FF part as this is the main topic on this section of FWR. Of course Nog gave an excellent recap as many will not read the full report like you and I.
Sorry I upset you. :-\
I wouldn't worry about comments like dnibbles made...... If there was anything positive about the feedlots we would have had the proponents pointing them all out by now.
The point is there are known and unknown risks with the feedlots and Cohen recommends the precautionary principle be applied until there is research available that proves the feedlots are not causing harm. As we all know this is exactly the opposite of the approach the feedlots proponents have been pushing.......
-
No offence intended Chris. As this thread started off as a Cohen thread I would have liked to see it stay away from turning into a fish farming thread, since the report has so much more info in it. I expect the comments like af's, who has the Vic Toews mentality when it comes to this issue, but was very happy to read's Nog's post, which I saw as balanced and fair.
Go catch some coho ;D
-
No offence intended Chris. As this thread started off as a Cohen thread I would have liked to see it stay away from turning into a fish farming thread......
Maybe you should provide Rodney with a resume, so he can consider you for a moderator position........ :D
-
There appear to be a few here who have failed to notice that Cohen made 64 other recommendations pertaining to issues other than salmon farms that are equally relevant to the state of affairs surrounding sockeye. Any discussion of the report that doesn't also address those other recommendations is, as a consequence of that failure, nothing more than partisan posturing that ignores both the intent and the outcome of the Commission.
Cohen didn't say farms were responsible; he recommended that the research be done in order to determine if they are responsible along with a number of other recommendations for further research in other areas with the same goal in mind. Any attempt to represent his findings as anything other than that is just more of the same old nonsense that ignores facts in favour of personal opinions and as such isn't worth arguing.
The bigger and more important question is how Harper's government is going to respond, especially in light of his gutting of both the DFO and environmental legislation. Unless action is taken, and the likelihood of that happening doesn't appear very good, the whole exercise will have been nothing more than a colossal waste of time and money.
-
The bigger and more important question is how Harper's government is going to respond, especially in light of his gutting of both the DFO and environmental legislation. Unless action is taken, and the likelihood of that happening doesn't appear very good, the whole exercise will have been nothing more than a colossal waste of time and money.
That's always been a problem with DFO's conflict of interest in promoting feedlots while supposedly protecting wild salmon. That needs to change. There needs to be a different Federal dept responsible for feedlot promotion. However DFO would need to have the authority to overrule any decisions made by the new department that are a risk to wild salmon.
You're still singing the same song that "there is no science to prove the feedlots are harming salmon". The feedlots need to accept responsibility for their share of the harm the feedlots are causing, as Cohen was quite specific on the risks.
It has been quite clear from the beginning that the feedlot proponents have attempted to redirect the responsibility from the feedlots to the other issues, and they continue to do so.
-
As we have discussed a number of times in the past, there is but one single reason why DFO was given the mandate to regulate farms and we all know what that reason is. For Morton and yourself and others to be moaning about that know is entirely disingenuous; it was Morton that put it in the DFO's hands and you in your comments here have supported her actions completely. To pretend otherwise is completely dishonest.
You, as usual, are completely misrepresenting what I said in yet another partisan effort to put your message out. Cohen was specific on the potential harm that might be caused but also specific on the fact that there is no proof of that harm. His recommendation was aimed at getting the necessary research done so that the answer was plain for all to see just as his other recommendations dealt with clearing up other unknowns. To represent it as anything else is entirely meaningless with respect to his report though certainly not out of character for you.
And I'll add one more thing: Anyone who participates in the Fraser sockeye snag fishery has no moral authority to be commenting on the decline of the sockeye stocks or the role of anyone or anything in that decline. Anyone who attempts to publicly justify that participation has less.
-
Go catch some coho ;D
I did. ;D ;D
-
did cohen mention the fraser snag fishery ?
-
did cohen mention the fraser snag fishery ?
It is not mentioned in any of his reccomendations, but perhaps it is mentioned somewhere in volume 1 explaining the fisheyr itself.
Nevertheless, the 'snag fishery' as you call it is irrelevant because (most) people would only be harvesting sockeye when DFO has the river open for sockeye retention. The report is looking into who so many fewer sockeye returned than expected during a year where no commercial or recreational fisheries were opened; 2009 was the kicker year which initiated the inquiry, the third year of no commercial openings, with only 15% of the expected return showing up. (1.4 out of the expected 10 million).
-
i only asked because absolon said anybody who takes part in the sport flossing fishery has no moral right to comment on the decline of the sockeye. i do take part in this fishery
and enjoy it.
-
As we have discussed a number of times in the past, there is but one single reason why DFO was given the mandate to regulate farms and we all know what that reason is. For Morton and yourself and others to be moaning about that know is entirely disingenuous; it was Morton that put it in the DFO's hands and you in your comments here have supported her actions completely. To pretend otherwise is completely dishonest.
We all know you are not so naive as to believe that Morton was responsible for changing responsibility for fish farms from the Province to a Federal responsibility. The Province's management of the feedlots was illegal under the Canadian constitution and the courts corrected that....
You, as usual, are completely misrepresenting what I said in yet another partisan effort to put your message out. Cohen was specific on the potential harm that might be caused but also specific on the fact that there is no proof of that harm. His recommendation was aimed at getting the necessary research done so that the answer was plain for all to see just as his other recommendations dealt with clearing up other unknowns. To represent it as anything else is entirely meaningless with respect to his report though certainly not out of character for you.
Spend some time rereading the report..... make sure you read the parts about the risk, harm and recommendations regarding minimizing the feedlots impact on wild salmon.
And I'll add one more thing: Anyone who participates in the Fraser sockeye snag fishery has no moral authority to be commenting on the decline of the sockeye stocks or the role of anyone or anything in that decline. Anyone who attempts to publicly justify that participation has less.
I didn't realize that you were competing with dnibbles for the position of moderator. ??? However, apparently you need to be reminded that this is a public forum, so even feedlot proponents are allowed to post. The survival of the wild salmon, including sockeye is important to all fishermen. Unfortunately if the feedlots are allowed to continue their practices, all fishermen will be limited in their opportunities to catch these fish.
-
And I'll add one more thing: Anyone who participates in the Fraser sockeye snag fishery has no moral authority to be commenting on the decline of the sockeye stocks or the role of anyone or anything in that decline. Anyone who attempts to publicly justify that participation has less.
I haven't been a part of the snaggery for 10+ years, and as much as I detest it and all that it has brought upon our fisheries, it has NOTHING to do with the decline in sockeye stocks. It represents such a small fraction of the total harvest that it is irrelevant in the big picture. Cohen didn't tai about it because it's a non-issue in terms of impact on sockeye popn's.
I did. ;D ;D
Good man, I'm jealous. I'm gonna have to deal with some of the weekend warriors tomorrow unfortunately (guess I am one now :()
We all know you are not so naive as to believe that Morton was responsible for changing responsibility for fish farms from the Province to a Federal responsibility. The Province's management of the feedlots was illegal under the Canadian constitution and the courts corrected that....
Wow, incredible to see that statement :D The standard af post that begins with "we all know....". Morton was not responsible????? http://deptwildsalmon.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/judge-hinkson-re-morton-v-british-columbia-agriculture-and-lands01-26.pdf
BC may have done a shitty job of regulating the industry, but to claim that Morton was not responsible for the shift of jurisdiction to DFO??? yikes. I agree that getting it away from DFO is a great idea. DFO didn't want it, it was forced upon them by some unknown individual. So now who does it go to?
Keywords to scan Cohen for: FRSSI, contaminants, climate change, 2011Science, Beamish, Neville and Sweeting, and Discovery Islands. In this person's opinion, upon first scan and personal knowledge these are likely any of the key factors that may have cumulatively had impacts that have resulted in Fraser sockeye decline.
Just this one simple man's opinion. Read more tomorrow.
-
So are the natives allowed to comment on the decline of the sockeye? Seems to me , they are responsible for the most destructive type of fishing method . Netting. Do we know how many fish each year they take? There should be no netting of any fish in the Fraser, including commercially.if we want to save our salmon . There are a lot of things that effect our salmon as you all know, fish farms , warm water temperatures ,overfishing in the ocean and our rivers, habitat destruction, and water pollution which I personally think is the worst of all. All the community's up and down the Fraser dumping sewage into the river. Hope for instance just has aeration ponds which force air into and then every so often drain the ponds and remove the solids. But all the liquids go directly into the Fraser. Can you imagine being a salmon trying to navigate, sometimes hundreds of miles, through a pot pouri of chemicals and then have enough energy to reproduce? I don't know how they do it. We have a lot of work to do.
-
I posted this somewhere else so instead of typing out something new (which could take up most of the evening) I thought I would just repost this here with a few small additions. It would be very easy to instantly react to some of the first comments posted on this thread and get into another circular debate, but for anyone that has followed this inquiry as closely as I have it is easy to see who has taken the effort to actually read the report (at least some of it) and "try" to understand it and who is still stuck saying the same old rhetoric which gets shot down very easy:
One of my initials fears before the inquiry began was that this was going to be framed as an Inquiry on Aquaculture. When I watch the television, read the newspapers (most of which hardly provided any coverage of inquiry other than the start and the end) and follow the forum comments its pretty clear that's what it turned out to be. That's a shame because when you actually start reading the report and not reactionary media stories you get more of an appreciation of what is involved and what is actually said. Just last week we all saw that many departmental habitat employees were presented the new reorganization changes. This came before lengthy recommendations in the Cohen Final report that specifically took aim at habitat issues (also stressors which present risk). At this time, my thoughts are for those employees who are (were) entrusted and were doing the best job possible to monitor these habitat issues listed by Justice Cohen, but are now likely looking at those recommendations as rather empty now. Let's be honest....It's hard to put horsepower behind recommendations if the support to implement them is in doubt. When you think about it, if this can happen before the inquiry was complete what is the chance that other recommendations will be enacted. People thinking instant implementation is going to be forthcoming in the next few months should instead bet on the Canucks to win the Stanley Cup. Just because Cohen makes recommendations does not necessarily mean government will agree with all of them. It does not mean that government, stakeholders and the general public will all agree at the best way to implement them - if any. Whether you are an environmentalist, a commercial fisherman, a recreational angler, a fish farmer, a First Nations elder or a fish counter you probably will agree. I encourage people to read Legislative Amendments (Volume 3, Chapter 3) to get Cohen views on this. It is kind of an eye opener and will likely get you starting to think more about the far-reaching implications these changes will have.
I like the recommendations on more research to help fill in these gaps identified (i.e. fish health, production dynamics, mortality of Sockeye during downstream migration, conducting more annual lake stock assessments and more funding for other salmon species that share the same Fraser River). Unfortunately, much of this has been stated before with no traction behind it. I do not think it needed a 26 million dollar inquiry to explain the importance. People doing this work have been saying this for awhile. I believe Dr. Peterman's and Dr. Dorner 's work on time series trends in productivity over a large spatial area is something we need to seriously look at. The Fraser may be part of a much larger issue. I encourage members to read up on this work. I agree with Cohen that Fraser River Sockeye salmon research data should be more readily available because new perspectives from non-governmental scientists (like universities) might be helpful for DFO to help meet its mandate. Personally, I would like to see the DFO website be revamped to make it easier for the public to access information.
Personally, I agree with many of Judge Cohen's recommendations; however, there are some I do not agree with. Some are kind of unrealistic, but that is the nature of these types of reports - not everyone is going to agree all the time or as strongly on certain items. Cohen is not saying that fish farming in BC is bad and must be removed immediately. He is accepting that there is some risk to wild Fraser River Sockeye salmon which is understandable because there is always risk to any industry of development in and around water. The difference this time around is that Cohen is weighting his recommendations in this regard on public submissions which demand that the risk be no more than "minimal". For him, this is the bar he is using to measure with, so people that say that Cohen was not listening to their concerns were mistaken. I believe he was also using the Wild Salmon Policy and his interpretation of the precautionary principle to guide his recommendations in this regard; however, final implementation of the WSP is still uncertain. In addition, I believe the tipping point for his recommendations in regard to fish farming were the technical reports submitted by Dr. Korman, Dr. Noakes and Dr. Dill and the interplay between them. I do not see anything wrong with collecting more data to satisfy Dr. Korman's and Dr. Dill's recommendations; however, getting any research done like this these days involves some monetary commitment. There lies another issue.
With the uncertainty that surrounds wild fish health (as outlined in Dr. Kent's Technical Report on Diseases and Parasites) I can see why Cohen chose not to conclude that there is low risk to Sockeye from salmon farms. Cohen actually took this approach to many other stressors also - not just salmon farms. Dr. Kent stated that most of the work on impact of pathogens has been done on fish farms and fish hatcheries. It should be noted that Cohen concluded that there is no evidence that diseases on fish farms are out of control or unusually high. Prominent fish farm activists have been planting this in the minds of the public for awhile now, amongst other things (more below). This is one of the reasons why I take issue with their claims and have never been a Rah Rah anti fish farm activist. I would rather see knowledge and research form the basis of these decisions - not reactionary rhetoric which scares the public rather informs responsibly. In one way Cohen cannot say the risk is low, but on the other he cannot say the risk is high. I believe Cohen is trying to strike a balance with such a contentious issue and see this as objectively as possible because the last thing he would want is either side saying that the other got ripped off. By the reaction of the BC Salmon Farmers Association they are pleased with the recommendations with more research on the potential impacts of diseases on wild fish and want to support it. Anti fish farm activists are happy with recommendations on an extended moratorium and the possibility of removal. My pessimistic side says that after 2020 many anti-fish farm activists will still hold on to the same view of the industry even if the data does not support their opinion. Hopefully, if more collaboration is done along with more transparency (which is coming with the new DFO regulations albeit slow) there will be some hope.
Because Ms Morton was such a big advocate of her theory about the cause of the decline of Fraser River Sockeye (actually creating a document for the inquiry and the general public) I think it is only fair to see how some of those theories were viewed by Cohen. In his findings, Cohen did not agree with Ms Morton's theory on marine anaemia on Chinook farms. If you recall, this was applauded by activists as a great theory. According to Ms Morton, the closure of Chinook farms in a certain area (which were false and exaggerated if you read the testimony) was the likely cause for the huge 2010 return. However, Cohen found contradictory evidence by actual fish health professionals to be more credible. Secondly, Cohen also concluded that there was uncertainty about the migratory route the Harrison River Sockeye take after they leave the Strait of Georgia. If you recall, Ms Morton insisted that Harrison River Sockeye avoid fish farms and their impacts between the mainland and eastern side of Vancouver Island by migrating through Juan de Fuca Strait to the west coast of Vancouver Island. This was the hallmark of her theory where she used a fancy coloured map to show how Harrison Sockeye avoid salmon farms (there are salmon farms on the WCVI also). However, Cohen determined that the evidence about this is incomplete (basically Morton only cites one paper to make this claim). Cohen recommends that DFO undertake research into the life history of the Harrison Sockeye which is a good thing.
Finally, I encourage members to read Volume 1 Chapter 5 on the Management of the Fraser River Sockeye Salmon Fishery. One of the things I have noticed on this and other forums are incorrect statements about how the fishery is managed and how it is assessed. For instance, there is a specific section about forecasting. You can still disagree with the chapter's contents, but at least you will be informed. Like nibbles I will be reading some more this weekend.
-
I hope everyone takes the time to at least read the recommendations section and not rely on special interest bloggers for their opinions.
I like the report and recommendations...they take a balanced and precautionary approach, come to the correct supportable conclusions, and take aim at DFO and the Harper government where they have gone wrong. Cohen also points an indirect spotlight on where political inference has subverted DFO responsibility for its core mandate (aboriginal co-management, aquaculture, habitat managment).
But I fear Harper will largely sweep this under the rug; perhaps picking out areas where they can make further cuts in DFO and ignoring any recommendations that might require restoration of funding to the department. It seems Justice Cohen thinks the same; he recommends an independent body to monitor the government's implementation of his recommendations.
Thanks to StillAqua, Nog, nibbles and absolon for providing some good points. Go catch some coho, Chris. ;D
-
I haven't been a part of the snaggery for 10+ years, and as much as I detest it and all that it has brought upon our fisheries, it has NOTHING to do with the decline in sockeye stocks. It represents such a small fraction of the total harvest that it is irrelevant in the big picture. Cohen didn't tai about it because it's a non-issue in terms of impact on sockeye popn's.
Personal take on the issue; I think the carcasses have more value in an ecosystem so don't fish salmon above the estuary. Also a test of the claim that a penny placed on the track can derail a train.
-
Thanks to StillAqua, Nog, nibbles and absolon for providing some good points. Go catch some coho, Chris. ;D
Have enough for a while.
-
Thanks to StillAqua, Nog, nibbles and absolon for providing some good points.
And yourself. Someone has to be the rational voice in the discussion.
-
Cohen Report Falls Short: Sto:lo Tribal Council
http://www.theprogress.com/news/176989961.html
-
BC Green Party wades in.
http://greenparty.bc.ca/2013/category/media-releases/
-
Fin Donnelly asks questions in the House re Cohen.
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/2012/11/06/Donnelly_asks_Conservatives/
-
http://youtu.be/1aXmrF9qMZM