Farmed Fish Story - A Whopper of a Controversy

[news@turtleisland.org]

Farmed fish protest goes to BC Supreme Court
April 2010
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=11302#p11302

- - -
Farmed Fish-Sea Lice and Disease Records Now Public
March 1st, 2010
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=11071#p11071
- - -

Summer of 2009
Where are the Sockeye Salmon?
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=10398#p10398
- - -

Wild salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago - First Nations leaders confront Norway's hypocrisy
May 2009
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=10182#p10182

- - -
BC does not have legal right to regulate Fish Farms says BC Supreme Court decision
February 2009
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/01/2009BCSC0136.htm
- - -


New BC report says Limit fish farming and . . . establish a new governance system and make sure First Nations participate and have sufficient resources to participate . . .
February 7, 2009
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=10026#p10026

- - -

Class-Action Law Suit launched by Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish against the British Columbia Government to address the impacts of aquaculture on wild salmon in their territory http://www.turtleisland.org/news/kclassaction09.pdf
February 4, 2009
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=10015#p10015

- - -
A First Nation fish farm celebration in BC? Yes, at Klemtu!
December 3, 2008
viewtopic.php?p=9859#p9859
- - -

Farmed fish plan sparks backlash from Musgamagw-Tsawatainek
June 27th, 2008
viewtopic.php?p=9446#p9446
- - -

Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish Chief takes fish farm concerns to Norway
June 6th, 2008
viewtopic.php?p=9354#p9354
- - -

Parasitic sea lice infestations
Wild salmon headed for extinction - fish farms to blame, says study
December 13, 2007
viewtopic.php?p=8832#p8832
- - -

Efforts to force fish farms into closed containment systems
May 3, 2007
viewtopic.php?p=8246#p8246
- - -

Devastation!
Study proves Fish Farms Do Kill Wild Salmon
October 2, 2006. . .
viewtopic.php?p=7479#p7479
- - -

Risk of escaped farmed salmon detrimentally affecting wild stocks in BC is low, says study. . .
July 26, 2006
viewtopic.php?p=7261#p7261
- - -

First Nations challenge government committee over lack of proper protocols . . .
June 24, 2006
http://www.salmonfarmers.org/files/06_24_06.htm
- - -

Members of the Tla-o-qui-aht and Ahousaht First Nation working in salmon farming and processing, attended the Fish Farm Probe. . .
June 2006
viewtopic.php?p=7069#p7069
- - -

May 30, 2006

First Nations of northern BC delivered anti-fish farm message to world's largest fish farm operator. . .
viewtopic.php?p=7047#p7047
- - -

UPDATES . . . For more about First Nations and Farmed Fish issues, visit . . . http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-fishfarms.htm
- - -

January 8, 2004

Farmed Salmon - Dangerous or Harmless?

The farmed fish story is a whopper of a controversy about contamination and whether farmed salmon is dangerous or harmless.

Two contradictory reports were released that further muddy the waters.

According to a global scientific study published in Science magazine, farmed salmon contains significantly higher levels of contaminants like PCBs and dioxins. Physicians and Canadian consumer awareness groups responded to scientist's recommendations that consumers limit intake of farmed salmon.

"Farmed salmon should be consumed in limited amounts and consumers should be aware that consumption of even one or two meals of farmed salmon per month may exceed acceptable levels of dangerous contaminants."

Store-bought samples from Toronto, San Francisco, Boston, Frankfurt, Edinburgh, Paris, London, and Oslo triggered consumption recommendations of ". . . no more than one-half to one meal per month".

Samples from Vancouver, LA, Washington DC, Seattle, Chicago, and New York triggered consumption recommendations of ". . . less than one - two meals per month".

Meanwhile, a report commissioned by Positive Aquaculture Awareness PAA found no science and much hyperbole in past claims of high levels of PCBs in farmed salmon.

It said their study clearly demonstrates " . . . how activists and the media have misled the public into thinking farmed salmon contain high levels of PCBs".

Laurie Jensen, President, PAA, a grassroots group based in Campbell River, British Columbia said their concern has more to do with how the latest farmed-salmon-and-PCP study ". . . will be reported in the news media".

PAA's report looks back on numerous inaccurate media stories about high levels of PCBs in farmed salmon, and how those stories can be traced to two flawed studies.

The PAA report also highlights the many scientifically valid studies and statements from no less than ". . . the National Cancer Institute, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Council on Science and Health, the American Heart Association, the World Health Organization and the National Fisheries Institute encouraging consumers to eat more farmed salmon -- not less -- as part of a healthy, heart-friendly diet".

----------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND - Who Should We Believe?

The proof is in: Farmed salmon contains significantly higher levels of contaminants like PCBs and dioxins, according to a global scientific study published in Science magazine today

- Physicians and Canadian consumer awareness groups respond to
scientist's recommendations that consumers limit intake of farmed
salmon and the need for more study into salmon feed. Available online
at http://www.sciencemag.org
- Toronto and Vancouver on watch lists for contaminant levels in farmed
salmon

Vancouver

January 8, 2004

Farmed salmon should be consumed in limited amounts and consumers should be aware that consumption of even one or two meals of farmed salmon per month may exceed acceptable levels of dangerous
contaminants, according to the findings of an unprecedented global study
published in the US-based journal, Science today.

The study, which examined two metric tons of wild and farmed salmon
samples from wholesalers and retailers across North America and Europe, offers new recommended consumption levels based on the rigorous standards of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Significantly, store-bought samples from Toronto, San Francisco, Boston,
Frankfurt, Edinburgh, Paris, London, and Oslo triggered consumption
recommendations of no more than one-half to one meal per month. Samples from Vancouver, LA, Washington DC, Seattle, Chicago, and New York triggered consumption recommendations of less than one - two meals per month.

"Many people in Toronto and elsewhere in North America are not even aware that they are consuming farmed salmon, let alone the associated health risks.

Based on what we've seen in this study, we will increase our efforts to
educate consumers about the health and environmental problems associated with farmed salmon and encourage them not to eat farmed salmon until it is safe." said Jennifer Lash spokesperson for the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, a group of British Columbia-based fishers, First Nations and conservationists behind a global consumer campaign on farmed salmon.

The study's authors call for further research into the contaminant sources, particularly feeds used for farmed carnivorous fish species such as salmon. "There are solutions and alternatives out there. Some innovative
companies trying to develop vegetable-based foods that may drastically reduce, if not eliminate, contaminants in the fish food, but we can only address this problem if consumers stop buying farmed salmon until the salmon farming industry changes the way they do business," said Lash.

Interviews available with: Jennifer Lash, Dr. Andrew Weil, US Physician,
nutrition specialist, television personality (Oprah Winfrey show), and
specialist in nutrition and integrative medicine & Otto Langer, Marine
Conservation Program Director, David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver

For further information: Helesia Luke, helesial@impacs.org,
604-682-1953 (104)

--------------------------

January 8, 2004

A report released earlier today acknowledges that while environmental contaminants are widespread and found in many foods that both farm and wild salmon remain a safe food product.

In both this and previous studies, salmon tests well below health and food safety standards set by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization.

North and South American wild and farmed salmon are well below stringent government health standards. It is important to note that PCB's exist in the environment and are present in trace levels in many foods, including beef, milk and chicken. The report released today also ignores widely published studies of contaminants in wild salmon which show levels comparable to farmed salmon, still well below the standards set by the CFIA and FDA.

In the US, where the study was authored, food safety standards are set by
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) not by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA guidelines were established for sport and subsistence fishermen who repeatedly fish the same heavily contaminated waters. Using these standards to assess general food safety levels is at odds with not just the FDA, but also with the stated positions of the American National Cancer Institute, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and host of other scientists.

"Consumers can be confident that both wild and farmed remain one of the
best protein choices we have today," said Mary Ellen Walling, Executive
Director, BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA). "Salmon is a safe and healthy food choice, and the salmon aquaculture industry has an important role to play in the development of a vibrant and sustainable seafood industry in British Columbia."

The health benefits of eating salmon - wild or farmed - are significant.
Eating just two (100 gms) servings of fatty fish each week appears to protect men and women from coronary heart disease (CHD), the leading cause of death in North America. When these facts are coupled with the relatively low amount of PCB load in the diet contributed by salmon as compared to other foods, the risk-benefit conclusion certainly weighs in on the side of continued consumption of salmon.

For further information: Mary Ellen Walling, Executive Director, BC
Salmon Farmers Association, Phone: 250-286-1636, http://www.salmonfarmers.org

--------------------------
Landmark report commissioned by PAA finds no science and much hyperbole in past claims of high levels of PCBs in farmed salmon

Campbell River, BC, January 7, 2004

A landmark report released today by Positive Aquaculture Awareness (PAA) clearly demonstrates how activists and the media have misled the public into thinking farmed salmon contain high levels of PCBs.

The PAA report comes just days in advance of the release of a new study
which is said to examine the level of pesticides and environmental
contaminants found in salmon from North and South America and Europe. The coming study is reportedly based on a substantial sample testing of two metric tons of farmed and wild salmon taken from eight countries and 16 cities in Europe and the United States.

"The fact is we anticipate the coming study will show contaminant levels
well below the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Our concern has more to do with how the coming study will be reported in the news media," said Laurie Jensen, President, PAA, a grassroots group based in Campbell River, British Columbia.

PAA's report released today looks back on numerous inaccurate media
stories about high levels of PCBs in farmed salmon, and how those stories can be traced to two flawed studies, one by Michael Easton and the other by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

"We've conducted an extensive analysis of these two past studies, and as
our report clearly shows, both studies come up extremely short on scientific validity," said Jensen.

Both the Easton and EWG studies contained numerous breaches of scientific methodology, including unrepresentative sample sizes, skewed numbers, inflated measurement values, erroneous assumptions, and activist sponsorship - to name but a few of the problems.

"What's really disappointing is the way the media took these two studies
at face value, repeating their erroneous conclusions almost verbatim," Jensen said.

"Journalists failed to give these studies a thorough, critical review and
in so doing misled the public away from farmed salmon, one of the most
healthy, nutritious foods you can eat," she said. "We hope the coming data on North and South America and Europe will be treated with more care."

The PAA report also highlights the many scientifically valid studies and
statements from no less than the National Cancer Institute, the National
Academy of Sciences, the American Council on Science and Health, the American Heart Association, the World Health Organization and the National Fisheries Institute encouraging consumers to eat more farmed salmon -- not less -- as part of a healthy, heart-friendly diet.

"With this report we want to make clear once and for all that there is
absolutely no scientific basis for the allegation that farmed salmon contains
high levels of PCBs," said Dr. Patrick Moore, Chairman and Chief Scientist,
Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., the company commissioned to prepare the report.

"We hope the media will learn a lesson from this report, and will examine
health and nutrition issues more carefully before leaping to alarmist
conclusions," Moore said.

The report entitled "Farmed salmon, PCBs, Activists, and the Media" is
the first in a series of reports PAA plans to release in subsequent months
examining the myths and misinformation surrounding the salmon farming
industry.

Electronic copies of the report are available for downloading from the
'reports' section at PAA's website: http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org

For further information: please contact: Laurie Jensen, President, PAA,
250-286-8802 (office), 250-830-7615 (cell) or http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org

[ubcic.bc.ca]

Union of BC Indian Chiefs condemns federal fish farms report

"It has come to the attention of the UBCIC, that the author of the OCAD report was the former executive director of the industry lobby group, the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance. How can First Nations not question the integrity of the recommendations of the report?"


ORIGINAL SENT VIA FAX

March 12, 2004

The Honourable Geoff Regan,
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
15th floor - 200 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6


Dear Minister Regan:

On behalf of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), I am writing to state the UBCIC long-held position on fish farms as a response to the report from the Office of the Commission for Aquaculture Development (OCAD) released March 1, 2004 entitled Recommendations for Change. http://www.ocad-bcda.gc.ca/

Firstly, a deadline of March 12, 2004, a whole eleven days from the release of the report, to receive comments is absurd especially when dealing with fundamental Aboriginal Rights such as the Aboriginal Right to fish. I would strongly urge you to extend the deadline for one month to allow First Nations to respond adequately to the recommendations of the report.

Secondly, the UBCIC has always taken a zero tolerance approach to fish farming. The lifting of the provincial moratorium on fish farms, in our opinion, opened the flood gates to the wanton destruction of the wild salmon fishery and other valuable marine life in the delicate ecosystems along the coast.

Thirdly, we have learned through a review of published science articles that there is evidence that fish farming impacts and in fact adds to the world-wide depletion of other species of fish worldwide, that farmed salmon contains up to ten times more toxic substances like PCB’s than wild species of salmon and that there is a direct connection between sea-lice from fish farms and the collapse of wild salmon stocks.

As an example, we believe that sea-lice and the detrimental impacts of large numbers of penned Atlantic Salmon are directly responsible for jeopardizing seven unique runs of wild Pink Salmon in the Broughton Archipelago.

These impacts have been documented by the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council and stated repeatedly by the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council. In short, how can First Nations, like those of the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council, exercise the Aboriginal Right to fish if there is no fish to be caught?

How can the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development fail to mention any of these significant scientific findings in his report? In particular, the UBCIC finds the recommendation contained in the report that fish farms be exempted from the provisions of the Fisheries Act to be repugnant and a flagrant disregard of our Aboriginal Right to fish.

It has come to the attention of the UBCIC, that the author of the OCAD report was the former executive director of the industry lobby group, the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance. How can First Nations not question the integrity of the recommendations of the report?

In conclusion, I trust that you, as the Minister responsible for the protection of wild salmon stocks and as a Minister of the Crown which bears a fiduciary duty to Aboriginal People, will condemn this report unequivocally. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,


[Original Signed by Chief Stewart Phillip]

Chief Stewart Phillip
President
Union of BC Indian Chiefs


C.C: Members of the Parliamentary Committee for Fisheries & Oceans
Members of the Senate Committee for Fisheries & Oceans
UBCIC Chiefs Council
www.ubcic.bc.ca

--------------------

NOTE: Aquaculture ventures exist in at least 16 First Nation communities across Canada . . .

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =2445#2445

[www.ocad-bcda.gc.ca]

March 2004

"Aquaculture is carried out in all provinces and one territory, including 16 First Nations communities."

Commission for Aquaculture Development

http://www.ocad-bcda.gc.ca/

First Nations Involved in Aquaculture in Canada, 2003

Miawpukek Conne River, Newfoundland - Salmon, Steelhead, Oyster

Eskasoni Cape Breton, Nova Scotia - Salmon, Trout, Striped Bass

Cape Croker Wiarton, Ontario - Rainbow Trout

Wikwemikong South Baymouth, Ontario - Rainbow Trout

Aundeck Omni Kaning Little Current, Ontario - Rainbow Trout

Rainy River Emo, Ontario - Sturgeon

Akwesasne Cornwall, Ontario - Perch

Tla-o-quiaht Tofino, BC - Shellfish

Klahoose Campbell River, BC - Clams, Oysters, Scallops

Sliammon Powell River, BC - Clams

Quatsino NW Vancouver Island, BC - Shellfish

Snuneymuxw Nanaimo, BC - Clams, Oysters

Ahousaht Tofino, BC - Clams, Oysters, Salmon

Kitasoo/Xaixais Klemtu, BC - Salmon

Kyuquot NW Vancouver Island, BC - Salmon

Huu-ay-aht NW Vancouver Island, BC - Abalone

"In some First Nations communities, species that were once part of
traditional diets but are no longer available in the wild are now being farmed."

Aboriginal Opportunites in Aquaculture

A significant challenge facing both the Canadian government and First Nations leadership is the creation of a sustainable economic base for First Nations communities. While the modern, global economy is having considerable success with providing employment and generating wealth, this success is limited to those countries which can offer the advanced education, training and mobility needed to participate in this increasingly
knowledge- and urban-based economy.

Those in rural areas are not able to fully participate. This is particularly true for First Nation communities. Moreover, there is an inherent lack of
mobility among First Nations people and the survival of unique First Nations cultures is linked intrinsically to the resource base of their traditional territories.

To help rectify this situation, longterm, sustainable employment opportunities are required not short term, make-work projects.

Among some First Nation communities, there is considerable discontent regarding aquaculture, particularly with respect to finfish farming and especially in British Columbia. In other First Nation communities, however, aquaculture has proved to present a powerful opportunity
for the development of a sustainable economic base. In many regions of Canada, First Nations have unique access to aquaculture development sites, when the primary constraint on industry growth in the area is, in fact, site availability. Aquaculture also fits well with the skills held by much of the potential work force in these communities.

Recognizing this opportunity, those First Nations that have established aquaculture operations have found that the industry can provide stable
employment and wealth for the community, thereby producing resources
that can be channelled into areas of need.

Today, aquaculture ventures exist in at least 16 First Nation communities across Canada. However, the present level of aquaculture development amongst First Nations is not reflective of the potential that exists.

A preliminary analysis conducted for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in 2001 by a team of aquaculture experts and First Nations business development specialists suggested that: approximately 130 First Nations may have the potential to develop trout farms; approximately 61 coastal First Nations have access to sites which could support salmon farms; and approximately 123 First Nations have access to sites with the potential for clam, mussel, and/or oyster farming.

Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation Salmon Farming Success Story

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... php?t=1410

Located in Klemtu, some 480 kilometres north of Vancouver on the BC central coast, the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation is a relatively small (718 hectares) and isolated community with no year-round road access. The on-reserve population of 460 people is predominantly young and growing, having doubled over the last 20 years. Moreover, this growth rate is
expected to continue.

For generations, the economy of the community was sustained by the commercial and food fisheries. Since the 1950s, however, the returns of
wild salmon have fallen dramatically, resulting in a severe loss of employment and leaving the community without a sustainable economic base

In response to this situation, the Kitasoo/Xaixais people chose to diversify their economy. They developed an economic revitalisation plan that
focused upon sustainable opportunities in tourism, forestry and aquaculture. The community decision to develop these sectors was
contingent upon maintaining the environmental, cultural and ecological values of their territory and protecting fish and wildlife habitats.

Maintaining a balance between these traditional values and the needs of their community for economic prosperity and sustainable employment is critical to success. In partnership with Marine Harvest Canada, a commercial salmon farm was developed in the Kitasoo/Xaixais territory.

In addition, through distance education, North Island College delivered practical aquaculture training to provide community members with the requisite skills. Today, salmon farming accounts for one-half of the local economy of the Kitasoo/Xaixais people and is a source of community pride.

In deciding to pursue aquaculture via a joint-venture agreement with
Marine Harvest Canada, the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation was adamant that the environmental integrity of their traditional territory not be compromised. They were particularly concerned that Marine Harvest's fish-farming activities might reduce the fisheries harvests for other community members. Consequently, the Kitasoo/Xaixais community retained final decisionmaking powers in all matters pertaining to environmental impacts and decisions, making it clear to Marine Harvest Canada that if the farm was found to be the cause of environmental degradation, it would be shut down without hesitation.

Today, the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation and Marine Harvest Canada operate three salmon farms that are certified under an ISO 14001 environmental program and are subject to extensive independent monitoring. After four years of operations, fisheries harvests have not
declined and the environmental integrity of the region remains intact. Chief Councillor and Band Manager Percy Starr of the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation proudly claims that "no one should be fooled into thinking
that BC's Kitasoo First Nation had sold out and sacrificed any part of its environmental heritage in order to become part of the salmon-farming industry."

--------------------------------

Positive Aquaculture Awareness
NEWS RELEASE

First Nations show strong support for BC aquaculture in new video

December 11 2003, Campbell River – A new video released today by Positive Aquaculture Awareness tells the story of the many First Nations that are benefiting from opportunities in the BC aquaculture industry.
“I hope this video puts an end to the second-hand comments of some activists who say First Nations don’t support salmon farming in their communities,” said Percy Starr, Chief of the Kitasoo First Nation.

“We’re strong supporters of BC’s salmon farming industry because we know it’s an industry that’s providing important, long-term opportunities for our people,” said Starr, who appears in the video.

Videographer Steve Wallace of Matrix Video Productions in Campbell River said the video is being distributed to First Nations people, aquaculture stakeholders and other political leaders across the province.

“The idea of the project was to record first-hand accounts from First Nations working in the aquaculture industry, including key members such as the Kitasoo, Ahousaht and Kyuquot First Nations,” Wallace said.

Salmon aquaculture employs members of First Nations in communities such as Campbell River, Klemtu, Alert Bay, Port Hardy, Fort Rupert, Port Edward, Kitkatla, Tofino and surrounding villages in Clayoquot Sound. The industry generates more than 4,000 jobs throughout the Coast.

“Salmon aquaculture is one of the best prospects for First Nations employment in BC Coastal communities,” Starr said.

BC salmon farming companies have signed numerous agreements with various First Nations, ensuring these communities have access to the long-term benefits of this sustainable industry.

“Too often First Nations are portrayed by activists as being negatively impacted by salmon farming,” said Laurie Jensen, President, Positive Aquaculture Awareness.

“We were very pleased to be able to work with First Nations on this project because they are able to articulate how unfair that portrayal really is,” Jensen said.

Jensen said copies of the new video can be ordered through her organization’s web site, www.farmfreshsalmon.org

-- 30 --
For more information or for media copies of the video, please contact:
Laurie Jensen, President, PAA
250-830-7615 (cell) or www.farmfreshsalmon

--------------------------------

Read more about First Nations and Fish Farms
http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-fishfarms.htm

[Guest]

Fish Farms Fail in salmon farming Report Card

March 30, 2004
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =2586#2586

[tamara@davidsuzuki.org]

71% of Prince Rupert residents say no to new salmon farms
- Locals call on Ottawa to protect area -

April 28, 2004

VANCOUVER - Proposed fish farms in the mouth of Canada’s second-largest salmon-producing river are being approved by the B.C. government in spite of opposition from local residents, say the Prince Rupert Environmental Society and the David Suzuki Foundation.

Eighteen new farms are proposed for the Skeena River, a pristine area currently free from fish farms. The B.C. government has already passed many of these sites through its environmental review process. A review of the applications by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is the next, and final, step.

However, Prince Rupert area residents have not had any meaningful opportunity to participate in the process. Results of a new survey of 307 respondents released today indicate an overwhelming majority of residents do not support fish farm development. When asked, “Do you think we should have salmon farms on the northcoast,” 71% of respondents said “No”.

“Salmon farms pose a clear risk to wild salmon from sea lice infestations, water pollution and escape of non-native species,” said Jay Ritchlin of the David Suzuki Foundation. “The Skeena is Canada’s second-largest commercial salmon run, which is vital to the region’s economy and ecology. Fisheries and Oceans Canada should not allow fish farm expansion into pristine areas, especially those that support some of the only healthy salmon runs in the world.”

Approval of these sites would ignore recommendations by the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (PFRCC), a group established in 1998 to provide independent advice to government on the conservation of Pacific fish populations. The Council, chaired by former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Hon. John Fraser, recommended in January 2003 “The selection and approval of fish farms sites should recognize and avoid wild salmon migration routes and feeding locations.” The 18 proposed sites would violate this precaution.

Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, DFO has final say about the fish farms, a significant number of which has already been approved by the provincial government without adequate public consultation. DFO has made no formal call for public input to its assessment.

“Governments at all levels seem intent on pushing this through quickly and quietly without asking the people most affected how they feel,” said Kathy Ehman, Prince Rupert Environmental Society. “Fisheries and Oceans Canada has a mandate to protect wild salmon and salmon habitat. Clearly Ottawa has to step in and put a stop to these new salmon farms.”


Tamara Nowakowsky

Communications Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation

Phone: 604.732.4228 x.270/Cell 604.250.5474

e-mail: tamara@davidsuzuki.org

[www.watershed-watch.org]

MEDIA RELEASE

New Report Answers Questions on Sea Lice and Salmon, Raises Others About Government

April 29, 2004 (Coquitlam, BC) -- Watershed Watch Salmon Society today released a wide-ranging overview of sea lice, wild salmon and salmon farms in British Columbia.

The 25-page report, Sea Lice and Salmon: Elevating the Dialogue on the Farmed-Wild Salmon Story, answers key questions about sea lice biology and threats, and raises others about the federal and provincial governments’ apparent indifference to BC’s once robust wild salmon.

Executive director Dr. Craig Orr says Watershed Watch felt compelled to produce the report because governments refuse to deal honestly with either the threats to wild salmon, or the questions repeatedly raised by concerned Canadians.

“After attending numerous meetings, reviewing current research, interviewing many professionals and laymen, and witnessing tepid government responses to questions about sea-lice risks to wild salmon, it seemed that the federal and provincial governments were most concerned about dodging responsibility and controversy.”

Sea Lice and Salmon provides overviews of aquaculture, the biology and ecology of sea lice, the links between sea lice and salmon farms, the Broughton Archipelago pink salmon collapse, the current sea-lice treatments, the roles of governments, the people involved, and the merits of conserving the biodiversity of wild salmon. And it does so with a science underpinning and easy-to-read language.

“This report raises serious concerns about governments’ care of wild salmon and the public interest,” said Orr. “Hopefully it will help concerned Canadians contribute to ensuring that wild salmon don’t become yet another victim of myopic ideology and expediency.”

Sea Lice and Salmon: Elevating the Dialogue on the Farmed-wild Salmon Story is available online at
http://www.watershed-watch.org/ww/Seali ... s_main.htm
or by contacting Watershed Watch directly.

Contact:

Craig Orr, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Watershed Watch

Office: (604) 936-9474

Cell: (604) 809-2799

http://www.watershed-watch.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Hunter,
BC Coordinator,
Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR)
Phone: 250-479-0937

Please visit our website: http://www.farmedanddangerous.org

[Guest]

Latest DFO study finds no link between salmon farms and sea lice on wild salmon; activists' claims shown to be false

May 10,2004

A detailed scientific study, released today by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), found no link between salmon farms and sea lice infections of wild salmon in the Broughton Archipelago.

"This scientific analysis from DFO supports what we've been saying all
along: Alexandra Morton's allegations of a link between salmon farms and sea lice infections are just plain wrong," said Ian Roberts, a spokesman for
grassroots-based Positive Aquaculture Awareness (PAA).

"The DFO study sampled 20,000 fish and showed every three out of four
fish were lice-free and even those with lice were perfectly healthy," said
Roberts.

Yet as recently as last Friday, anti-aquaculture activist Alexandra
Morton was spreading false alarms in an e-mail by alleging mainland pink and chum salmon stocks in the Broughton were infected with sea lice at the "highest rate" documented to date and that she was witnessing "an extinction."

"Ms. Morton should be embarrassed by her false allegations of an
extinction and should apologize immediately to the hard working communities and First Nations people whose livelihoods she continues to threaten," said Roberts.

"Ms. Morton won't be able to use the excuse of lice in order to justify
fallowing more salmon farms in the area either, because DFO found pink and chum salmon throughout the Broughton and Knight Inlet. This contradicts her assertion that fallowing a main migration corridor allows juvenile salmon to move uninfected from fresh water to the ocean," Roberts said.

The peer-reviewed DFO study further contradicted Morton's allegations by
showing that in cases where fish had sea lice, the majority (15%) were
infected with Caligus clemensi (a species rarely found on farmed salmon),
while a minority (9%) were infected with Lepeophtheirus salmonis (a species commonly found on wild and farmed salmon).

"This again proves Ms. Morton wrong because the majority of lice found on
wild fish are not even the same species as those found on farmed fish," said Roberts. "We know she'll keep crying wolf. But this time we think the real science has caught her red-handed," Roberts said.


For further information: Ian Roberts, (250) 830-8923; Leanne Brunt,
(250) 287-0388

[www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

May 10, 2004


FINDINGS OF DFO STUDY IN THE BROUGHTON ARCHIPELAGO
RAISE MORE QUESTIONS

Vancouver - Fisheries and Oceans Canada today announced that results of the sea lice/juvenile salmon research conducted last spring in the Broughton Archipelago show that of almost 20,000 juvenile salmon sampled, 3 out of every 4 were free of lice. Furthermore, all fish studied appeared to be in good health, in spite of the lice present.

The information collected by DFO scientists from March to mid-June 2003 indicates that pink and chum juvenile salmon were found throughout the study areas, and that two species of sea lice were found on the salmon studied. Of the pink salmon examined, approximately 15% were infected with Caligus clemensi (a species rarely found on farmed salmon) and 9% were infected with Lepeophtheirus salmonis (a species commonly found on wild and farmed salmon). The average number of lice per infected fish in the study area was 1.7. All fish captured appeared healthy and no dead or dying fish were observed in the field.

Another observation is that juvenile pink and chum salmon were found throughout the Broughton Archipelago and in Knight Inlet, thus contradicting the hypothesis that a main migration corridor is used by juvenile salmon moving from freshwater to the open ocean.

On April 6, 2004, members of the Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee, along with external experts met in Nanaimo to judge the methodologies, data analyses, results, conclusions and recommendations from this study on salmon distribution and sea lice prevalence and intensity of infection. The final conclusions and recommendations of this peer-review process are contained in the advisory document released today and available from DFO’s website.

The next phase of the research plan in the Broughton Archipelago will begin May 10th, with further research into the distribution of pink and chum salmon and prevalence and intensity of infection by sea lice species. A minimum of $300,000 has been set aside for more sampling work in an attempt to better understand the full impact of sea lice infection on these juvenile salmon.

-----------------

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Statement on Sea Lice and Pacific Salmon Stocks

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has undertaken research on sea lice on Pacific salmon stocks in the Broughton Archipelago as part of its Pink Salmon Action Plan.

The department conducted its research from the beginning of March 2003 until mid-June 2003. The sampling took place during that interval without interruption. Sampling was conducted in areas where there are fish farms and in areas where there are no fish farms. This was done in an attempt to better understand the role of fish farms as potential reservoirs for sea lice.

Preliminary indications from the monitoring program are that the vast majority of sea lice found on wild stocks are a species rarely found on salmon farms. Furthermore, the bulk of the sea lice were juveniles that have minimal impact on the host.

Sea lice are naturally occurring organisms that have parasitized salmon and other species of fish on the Pacific coast long before aquaculture operations were present. While sea lice can lead to mortalities in heavily infected fish, it is difficult to attribute the decline of Pink salmon returns in 2003 to this organism. Pink salmon populations are known for their high natural variability. Data from the Broughton Archipelago over the past 40 years reveal that similar low returns have occurred before salmon farms were present, and conversely, high returns have occurred long after farms were in operation.

Given the complexity and variability of natural systems, it is difficult and scientifically indefensible to draw conclusions about sea lice impacts or causal links after one season of study. For this reason, the results of the 2003 research will be examined and vetted by the Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee (PSARC) on April 6th. A course of research will be confirmed following the meeting.

Additional information on DFO’s Pink Salmon Action Plan can be found at the following address:
http://www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/mehsd/ ... lmon_e.htm

[www.canadiansablefish.com]

Participants in one of B.C.'s most successful commercial fisheries say controversial fish-farm hatchery poses grave risks . . .

Elders from the Penelakut First Nation are among those demanding hatchery approval rescinded.

"The site is also a native burial ground and bones were unearthed there during hatchery construction."

May 19, 2004

A fish hatchery quietly approved last year by the provincial government and now operating on Saltspring Island was never subject to a proper environmental assessment and may pose serious risks to local waters and one of the province's most successful fisheries.

The hatchery is the first of its kind in Canada, and is raising sablefish
or black cod. The hatchery fish are destined for an as yet unidentified fish
farm somewhere in B.C. Plagued by chronically weak farmed salmon prices and ongoing environmental problems, more than 40 salmon farms in B.C. recently received government approval to raise sablefish or halibut instead of salmon.

"This hatchery is the thin edge of the wedge in a secret transformation
of fish farming that could devastate marine ecosystems and a commercial
fishery that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ranks among the best
managed in the world," says Eric Wickham, executive director of the Canadian Sablefish Association. The Association invests $2 million annually in black cod stock assessments and West Coast stocks are considered healthy.

Lawyers representing the Association, elders from the Penelakut First
Nation and members of Saltspring Island Residents for Responsible Land Use, want the approval of the hatchery rescinded and are arguing their case today before the Environmental Appeal Board in Victoria.

They say that the owners of Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. never properly
demonstrated what would happen to effluent produced from the hatchery, whether it would end up in nearby marine waters, and what impact bacteria, pathogens and microbes in the effluent might have on local fish stocks. The hatchery site rests on an unusual landform known as a tombolo, a sandbar-like land formation joining Saltspring Island to a small outlying island.

The site is also a native burial ground and bones were unearthed there during hatchery construction.

Bob Fraumeni, a long-time black cod fishermen in B.C., says the available
evidence is that Norwegian fish farming companies, which control the salmon-farming industry in B.C., contributed to wiping out wild salmon stocks in Norway. Now, sea lice outbreaks at B.C. salmon farms are endangering local wild pink stocks. "The netcage model of fish farming for salmon has been a disaster. How can the province even think about allowing sablefish to be farmed? We don't have a clue what ecological impact sablefish hatcheries or farms will have on these stocks. But I can guarantee you it won't be good."

"Black cod is considered a delicacy in Japan, and there's growing demand for it locally," Fraumeni adds. "Dumping mushy and poor tasting farmed sablefish onto the market will turn off customers and hurt local businesses. As anyone who has tasted a wild salmon and farmed salmon will tell you, there's absolutely no comparison. Wild's best."

For further information: Eric Wickham, (604) 915-9117

-----------------

BACKGROUND

Fighting to save sacred ground
January 2004
Provincial government granted a permit to use the old Penelakut burial ground for sewage disposal for Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd . . .

http://www.canadiansablefish.com/news11.htm

-----------------

March 10, 2004

Mr. David Hutchcroft, Heritage Resource Specialist
Archaeology and Registries Services
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
PO Box 9375, Stn. Prov. Govt.
Victoria, B.C. V8W 9M5
FAX: 250-952-4188

RE: Heritage Site Alteration Permit Application 2003-123 by Mr. Gidon Minkoff
DfRu-002, Walker’s Hook, Salt Spring Island (Permit File 21100-20/2003-123)
Dear Mr. Hutchcroft,

The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group are in receipt of Mr. Gidon Minkoff’s application for an amendment to his Site Alteration Permit 2003-123 at DfRu-002, Walker’s Hook, Salt Spring Island, and herein pronounce our final judgment upon Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. and their proposed development atop our ancestral village and cemetery at Syuhe’mun.

The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group made a direct request to the Archaeology and Registry Services Branch, letter dated April 15, 2003, to decline Mr. Minkoff’s original application for a site alteration permit. At that time, no preliminary archaeological or environmental studies had been completed by Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. to responsibly guide their proposed development of their aquaculture fish hatchery. The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group office were concurrently reviewing three separate government referrals relating to this proposed land-use development, including a subdivision application from the Salt Spring Island Trust and Ministry of Transportation, a waste management act approval application from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and a heritage site alteration permit from the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

In concern of direct infringement upon our aboriginal rights at this significant archaeological site and traditional use location, the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group had specifically requested that preliminary archaeological and environmental studies be completed by the developer, as stated in writing to Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. on February 10, 2003, to the Salt Spring Islands Trust Committee on March 5, 2003, and the Ministry of Transportation on April 1, 2003.

In our April 15, 2003, letter to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, we stated it would be ‘imprudent’ for British Columbia to permit the destruction of our archaeological heritage for the convenience of an industrial waste filtration system prior to any environmental approval to dispose of its industrial waste at this sensitive ecosystem on Salt Spring Island.

On April 24, 2003, upon the subsequent approval of Mr. Minkoff’s site alteration permit by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and without any further consultation or accommodation of our stated First Nations’ interests at DfRu-002, Mr. Ray Kenny outlined his reasons for decision:

The permit application is for site alterations under Section 12 of the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) and is not an application for the construction of the waste filtration system.

The attached letter of April 22, 2003, from Gidon Minkoff to Dave Hutchcroft indicates that the applications to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP) and the Ministry of Transportation are contingent upon receipt of a Site Alteration Permit (SAP). In the former case, tests for seawater intake and seawater infiltration cannot be performed as required by WLAP without a SAP. In the latter case, the subdivision approval is for lease purposes.

We understand that two wells had already been installed at DfRu-002 in the summer of 2002 by Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd., in violation of the Heritage Conservation Act (1996), for the explicit purposes of performing seawater tests to apply for a Waste Management Act permit. Although Mr. Minkoff claims now not to have been aware of the DfRu-002 archaeological site at Walkers Hook at that time, we understand that he had contracted archaeological consulting firm, Millennia Research Ltd., Victoria, in the summer of 2002, who informed him of the DfRu-002 site and recommended that Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. complete an AIA study prior to any site development at Walkers Hook.

Further, we understand that the purpose of the site alteration permit was to construct the waste filtration infrastructure for the fish hatchery’s final operational systems, not for the purposes of performing any preliminary seawater testing. We argue that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management’s reasoning to grant an SAP upon Mr. Minkoff’s argument that preliminary seawater testing for a WLAP permit was contingent upon receipt of an SAP is based on false information. The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group finds it disturbing that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management would seriously consider the statements of a developer, rather than consult its own government agency, WLAP, to clarify British Columbia’s own information and provincial regulations on this matter.

The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group have been consistent in our stated interests to British Columbia that Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. complete a preliminary archaeological impact assessment study (AIA) as a valuable land-use planning tool to responsibly guide the long-term conservation of our archaeological heritage at Walkers Hook. We believe that Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. had a responsibility under the Heritage Conservation Act (1996) to identify all recorded and unrecorded archaeological resources on the proposed subdivision property prior to construction of the fish hatchery building, roads, wells, and sewer filtration system. We have previously identified to the developer and Salt Spring Islands Trust and Ministry of Transportation that a large ‘inland’ archaeological site, DfRu-006, is located on Mr. Henry Caldwell’s property, District Lot 65. Ms. Beth Hill in the 1970’s defined this inland site as a network of aboriginal trails and inland shell middens adjacent to fresh-water springs leading from Walkers Hook to Long Harbour. As inland archaeological sites are a rare, poorly-understood type of archaeological site recorded in the southern Gulf Islands, we argued it was necessary to define the boundaries of the DfRu-006 archaeological site (or network of inland sites), in an AIA study prior to approval of Mr. Caldwell’s subdivision application.

We believe that there is a very high potential that the development of Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. fish hatchery building, services and roads prior to any archaeological assessment may have irrevocably destroyed unrecorded inland archaeological resources at Walkers Hook.

In I.R.Wilson Consultant Ltd.’s January 9th court-written report for their site alterations at DfRu-002, Walkers Hook, between April 29 – May 20th and August 12th, Ms. Margaret Rodgers and Andrew Hickok (signed on their behalf by I.R.Wilson), indicated that in their professional opinion an archaeological impact assessment study was not necessary as the “nature and extent of the site was relatively well-documented”.

The DfRu-002 site had been last surveyed by archaeologists thirty years ago in 1974 during the provincial government’s Gulf Island Archaeological Survey. In our review of Stephen Cassidy and Brian Seymour’s survey field notes, the DfRu-002 site was last visited over less than a half day period on February 28, 1974. Their visit to DfRu-002 was in addition to their survey and mapping of four other archaeological sites on Salt Spring Island from the Athol Peninsula to Walkers Hook. Based on their estimated 1974 site area of 400m length x 80m in width, the DfRu-002 was recorded as the fifth largest of the 756 archaeological sites substantively recorded during the provincial government’s Gulf Island Archaeological Survey (Acheson et al. 1974:Appendix). The DfRu-002 site at Walkers Hook is only eclipsed in size by the relatively well-documented archaeological sites such as False Narrows (DgRw-004) and Shingle Point (DgRv-002). The DfRu-002 is comparatively far larger in size than many other relatively well-documented archaeological sites in the southern Gulf Islands, such as Helens Point (DfRu-008), Pender Canal (DeRt-001 and DeRt-002), Montague Harbour (DfRu-013), Dionisio Point (DgRv-003), Harbour House (DfRu-004) and Georgeson Bay (DfRu-024).

On February 28, 1974, the DfRu-002 shell midden site was briefly described and sketch mapped by provincial archaeologists. No subsurface tests were conducted to systematically define the site boundaries or to accurately assess the integrity of archaeological deposits at DfRu-002. No test excavations were directed to explore the nature of the archaeological site, and no artifacts or other chronological information were collected to analyze the DfRu-002 site’s antiquity and culture history.

Therefore, in contrast to I.R.Wilson Consultants Ltd. court-prepared statement, the nature and extent of the DfRu-002 site was not relatively well-documented, but relatively undocumented at the time of Mr. Minkoff’s application for a site alteration permit. Based on Mr.Minkoff’s choice to forego the expense of AIA study at the one of the largest recorded archaeological sites in the southern Gulf Islands, we are furious that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management recklessly allowed Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd.’s development to blindly proceed to develop at Walkers Hook without any accurate baseline information about DfRu-002 site’s exact size, depth, stratigraphic nature, complexity, integrity, antiquity, chronological range, content, scientific, cultural and/or public significance, and, importantly, knowledge of the presence of ancient human remains.

In receipt of Mr. Minkoff’s original application for a site alteration permit, dated March 11, 2003, the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group did not feel it credible to spend time commenting on the salvage-oriented archaeological methodology proposed by I.R.Wilson Consultants Ltd.

We understand that an application for a site alteration permit generally provides a detailed scientific research methodology that describes the scope of proposed impacts to an archaeological site, and outlines the theoretical and methodological research design to mitigate the destruction of archaeological data, such as systematic data recovery (excavation), analysis of collected data, and post-excavation recommendations, such as archaeological monitoring. The research design for a site alteration permits are generally contingent upon the analysis of data and recommendations deriving from primary archaeological planning studies such as archaeological overview assessments (AOA), archaeological inventory studies (AIS), and archaeological impact assessments (AIA). Essentially, a research design is a theoretical model and methodological plan that guides the scientific collection, analysis and interpretation of archaeological data deriving from a research project. As archaeological sites are understood to be fragile, non-renewable cultural resources, the preparation of an academically-sound research design is key to the conservation and sustainable management of archaeological sites threatened by irreversible destruction from land development.

In I.R.Wilson Consultant Ltd.’s March 11 permit application prepared on behalf of Mr. Minkoff, there is no archaeological research design. There was no scientific theory or methodology prepared to guide the construction work atop of the archaeological site at Walkers Hook. Based on the lack of this scientific foundation, there is no means for I.R.Wilson Consultant’s Ltd. to now evaluate, analyze or interpret whatever data they may have collected during their construction project at DfRu-002. Permitting the destruction of non-renewal archaeological deposits at DfRu-002, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management made no attempt whatsoever to protect public interests and ensure that we could learn from the archaeological work performed at DfRu-002 and that it could contribute to our broader academic understanding of First Nation history in British Columbia.

The only methods proposed in Mr. Minkoff’s site alteration permit consisted of raking artifacts from the backdirt of an excavator. Against Mr. Ray Kenny’s reasons for judgment, Mr.Minkoff’s site alteration permit was clearly not for the purposes of heritage conservation, but business-driven interests to clear archaeological deposits prior to industrial development. We understand that it is the role of the Ministry and archaeological consultants to ensure the professional documentation of archaeological deposits, not to facilitate the development of archaeological sites. This isn’t archaeology, this is land development under the guise of archaeology.

As observed during HTG staff inspection of the DfRu-002 site, there were no trained personnel for the first two and a half days of the fieldwork to monitor the activity of the backhoe operator. Although it is stated in Mr. Minkoff’s permit that either Mr. I.R. Wilson, President, or senior archaeologist Mr. Terry Clark, would be directing the monitoring and test excavations at DfRu-002, we are not aware that neither of those two individuals ever visited Walkers Hook during the project. Against the stated requests of the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group to the Ministry, letter dated April 25, there were no professional consultants accountable on site who had demonstrated experience in the identification of ancient human remains. Two young, untrained field assistants from the Penelakut Tribe had been hired to be responsible for raking backdirt and the collection of artifacts and human remains.

In our April 25 letter to the Ministry, the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group further expressly stated that if any articulated or unarticulated human remains were discovered that all work in the immediate vicinity would cease and that our First Nations’ be immediately consulted. On April 30, 2003, we understand that Ms.Rodgers notified you of the discovery of ‘possible’ human remains during trenching activity at DfRu-002. Neither yourself at the Ministry, Mr. Minkoff the permit holder, or I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. notified our Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group or Penelakut Tribe office. On May 1, 2003, based on reports of the discovery of human remains by local residents of Salt Spring Island, our Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group staff, Mr. Joey Caro and Mr. Eric McLay, made a surprise inspection of the DfRu-002 site and discovered that human remains, including a burial feature (Burial Feature #1) had been already excavated and removed from the sewer trench. Our HTG staff observed that Ms. Rodgers was excavating horizontally into the west wall at the base of the trench to remove large human skull fragments within intact archaeological shell deposits. Our HTG staff requested Ms. Rodgers to stop digging sideways undercutting the wall profile outside the parameters of the trench and to cease the excavation of ancient human remains embedded in the wall profile, as outside the conditions of Site Alteration 2003-123. Additional human remains were discovered by our HTG staff in the sorted backdirt pile at the north end of the trench, later associated with the discovery of a second intact burial feature (Burial Feature #2).

On May 6th, it is illustrated in the DVD video of the construction work at Walkers Hook, that Burial Feature #1 was completely excavated and removed by I.R.Wilson Consultants Ltd. staff. A 1.5 m x 1m unit was excavated outside the east wall of the trench parameters to systematically recover one complete and one partially complete adult individuals. The excavation of Burial Feature #1 had been completed by Mr. Minkoff and I.R.Wilson Consultants Ltd. without any consultation or formal agreement on protocols and procedures with either the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group or Penelakut Tribe. The excavation of Burial Feature #1 had been completed outside of the conditions of Site Alteration 2003-123; specifically, the illegal excavation of archaeological deposits outside of the trench parameters, and the excavation and removal of articulated human remains. This non-permitted activity is the second documented violation of the Heritage Conservation Act (1996) at DfRu-002 by Mr. Minkoff, President of Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. In concern for the breaking of customary law of the Penelakut Elders, however, it was agreed that Mr. Minkoff would immediately apply for a permit amendment that would specify in writing the Penelakut Elder’s conditions for the excavation and removal of human remains.

In mid-January 2004, the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group again heard reports that Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. were conducting unregulated development activity at Walkers Hook. As confirmed by your field visit to the DfRu-002 site on January 13, as reported in your letter dated January 16, 2004, Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. had drilled four new wells atop of DfRu-002 in December 2003. These four new wells were in addition to the two test wells and four test wells already installed at Walkers Hook. The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group were not consulted about this proposed development or their impacts by either Mr. Minkoff, I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd.. This is the second violation of Mr. Minkoff’s conditions for Site Alteration Permit 2003-123, and the third contravention of the Heritage Conservation Act (1996) by Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. at the DfRu-002 site. The present application of a second permit amendment is the direct result of this incremental destruction and illegal development activity atop of our archaeological heritage.

We observe that the drilling of these four new wells follows a typical pattern of Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. development activity at Walkers Hook. In 2002, without the benefit of a heritage site alteration permit, Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. drilled two seawater test wells atop of DfRu-002. In February 2003, prior to receipt of a subdivision approval and without the benefit of any preliminary archaeological inventory study, Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. proceeded to clear land and construct their fish hatchery building. In March 2003, without benefit of either an archaeological or environmental impact assessment studies, Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. applied for a site alteration permit for the construction of the waste filtration system prior to any approval under the Waste Management Act to dispose of their industrial waste at this location. With the initial discovery of ancient human remains, Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. proceeded with their construction without any notification of any First Nations’ against our stated interests and against Mr. Minkoff’s permit conditions. With the presence of intact burial features stalling development plans, Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. proceeded to remove these burial features without benefit of a site alteration permit amendment and without any consultation or agreements on protocols with the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group office or Penelakut Tribe government. With the failure of its filtration system without proper hydrogeological studies, Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. installs four new wells at Walkers Hook without any consultation with our First Nations and outside of the conditions of Site Alteration Permit 2003-123. In the absence of any enforcement of the repeated violations of the Heritage Conservation Act, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management allowed Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. to apply for a second major site alteration permit amendment, herein under discussion.

In order to review this permit amendment, the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group requested on February 15, 2003, further archaeological information from Mr. Minkoff in order to make an informed decision. On Februrary 29, Mr. Minkoff replied to our office unfortunately declining to provide any further archaeological information. It is clear that Mr. Minkoff and I.R.Wilson Consultants Ltd. are deliberately withholding this information from our Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group-membership. After nine months have passed since fieldwork, it is hard to fathom that no detailed site map, catalogue of human remains, catalogue of artifacts, description of cultural stratigraphy or carbon-14 analyses have been completed. All that is available to evaluate the past archaeological work is the two-page January 9th report by Ms.Margaret Rodgers and Mr. Andrew Hickok of I.R.Wilson Consultants Ltd. (signed by I.R.Wilson). In this report, it is evident that I.R.Wilson Consultants Ltd. are deliberately exaggerating the extent of disturbance at the site. It is obvious that they are deliberately devaluing the nature and significance of this archaeological site for the sake of their client and their company’s business interests against the Penelakut Elders court case in the Environmental Appeal Board.

Thus, in final judgment, the Chiefs of the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group declare that we will fiercely defend against any further physical destruction to our ancient village and cemetery site at Walkers Hook. Our Hul’qumi’num First Nation-membership are fully prepared to protect against any further desecration of our Ancestor’s remains at Syuhe’mun. Our Hul’qumi’num people will never allow British Columbia to permit the destruction of our archaeological heritage for the commercial benefit of Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. on Salt Spring Island.

The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group demands that the Ministry reject this permit amendment application to Mr. Minkoff. We demand that British Columbia enforces the numerous violations of the Heritage Conservation Act by this developer and his archaeological consultant. We demand that the Ministry rescind its recent permit reporting extension to Mr. Minkoff and order the developer to provide the Ministry and our First Nations’ with all requested archaeological information immediately.

The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group is deeply dismayed that we cannot rely on the judgment of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management to defend our First Nations’ and publics’ interests in heritage conservation. We look forward to the future when the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management begins to meaningfully consult and accommodate our First Nations’ aboriginal rights concerning our archaeological heritage in British Columbia. We look forward to the day when British Columbia values our First Nation heritage as an equal part of Canadian heritage.

Respectfully,

Robert Morales, Negotiator
Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group

cc.

Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia
Honourable Geoff Plant, Attorney General of British Columbia
Honourable George Abbott, Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada
Honourable Iona Campagnolo, Lieutenant Govenor of British Columbia
Ms. Carol James, Leader, NDP British Columbia
Mr. Dan Goodleaf, Federal Treaty Negotiation Office, Canada
Ms. Nancy Bircher, Provincial Treaty Negotiation Office, British Columbia
Mr. Phillip Fontaine, Assembly of First Nations
Chief Stewart Phillip, Union of BC Indian Chiefs

-----------------

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD
BETWEEN:

PENELAKUT FIRST NATION and

ERIC WICKHAM and

SALT SPRING ISLAND RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE LAND USE

AND:

MINSTRY OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION and

SABLEFIN HATCHERIES LTD.

AFFIDAVIT

I, August Sylvester, Elder, of 1450 Longhouse Road, Kuper Island, BC, DO SOLEMNLY, SINCERELY AND TRULY AFFIRM AND DECLARE THAT:

1. I am a respected Elder from the Penelakut First Nation, which is a Band pursuant to the Indian Act that makes up part of the Coast Salish Nation. I am a speaker of Hul’qumi’num. As such, I have personal knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafter deposed to except where they are sworn to be on information and belief in which case I verily believe them to be true.

2. To be an Elder to our people, you have to know all the laws and ways of the Coast Salish people. This knowledge includes the laws of the longhouse, about children growing up, raising a family, hunting, fishing, gathering and how to teach those children to be adults. Elders have to remember Indian laws so that we may teach them to the youth in our community. If we do not know the laws then we cannot become Elders in our community. In order to become an Elder you must be able to carry on the laws and try not to change them. It is important to keep all the laws and teachings the same all the time. The Elders in our community now are the people that listened when the old people of the past were talking. They learned the laws and traditions from the old ones and it is our role in our community to pass this knowledge on.

3. As an Elder in my community, it is also my family’s responsibility to be the caretaker of the people who pass on. Only certain families in our community are charged with this important responsibility. It is difficult to explain what this responsibility means but it is sacred and it is a great responsibility to be the caretakers of the gravesites.

4. The Coast Salish people have used the waterways as highways. They have been travelling throughout the Pacific Coast by canoe for a very long time. They travelled to harvest foods for winter, such as fish. In April, the spring salmon came and they knew the sockeye were coming so they would take their canoes out to meet them. They would stop along the way and use places to camp. Syuhe'mun (Walker Hook) was one of the traditional places they would travel to and camp. They used to go to meet the salmon at Pender Bluffs before travelling on the Fraser River to meet the salmon there.

5. Syuhe'mun is the location of a Coast Salish village. There used to be longhouses built there. It is also the site of a substantial clam midden. We know that Coast Salish people have used it for hundreds of years because the clam midden is so deep.

6. As a child my family continued to travel to Syuhe'mun to camp while we were fishing. We would also buy wool and trade salmon for canned goods. We would trade for apples, pears, canned vegetables and other goods there. If we did not camp overnight there, we used to stay for two to three hours talking and visiting approximately two to three times a year. We usually travelled there in the springtime when the salmon came in.

7. Syuhe'mun hosts a graveyard in which many of my Coast Salish ancestors are buried.

8. The Sablefin Hatcheries Ltd. (the “Hatchery”) located their business on Syuhe'mun.

9. The Hatchery has been given a waste management approval to dig trenches and wells on Syuhe'mun to use the site for sewage treatment.

10. During the digging of the trenches and wells approximately 9 human remains were found and my family was called to supervise the removal of the bodies and their possessions; and to rebury the ancestors on our territory.

11. The remains of two people were pushed back into the ground by the crew digging the trenches on Syuhe'mun. We were told the Hatchery would need another permit to remove them, so they would be left there and to the best of my knowledge they still remain there.

12. Most of the exposed human remains were removed and reburied at Kuper Island. My wife, Laura Sylvester and I witnessed the removal. We attended the site for four days. We brought the remains back to Kuper Island, where all but one of our ancestors were reburied.

13. We reburied one of the bodies, a medicine woman, at a different location at Syuhe'mun. We knew she was a medicine woman because she was buried with red ochre. She was covered with obsidian and she was found covering her eyes.

14. Since I saw that the narrow, shallow trenches that were dug had a number of bodies in them and I know that two ancestors remain there, I believe there are many more human remains on the site of the proposed effluent discharge.

15. The people who removed the remains did not use small archaeological instruments to remove the remains. They used a bobcat for digging.

16. The Hatchery is using the burial ground as a sewage treatment plant. The use of the ancestral burial ground as a sewage treatment site is very hurtful to our people. It is counter to all of our beliefs. Our burial grounds are sacred to the Coast Salish. There are rules to follow at gravesites. For example, you are not allowed to even spit on that ground. On that ground you do not drag your feet or kick the rocks. If you had to dig in that ground you first have to put on a handkerchief, red ochre and pray. This is pursuant to our laws on how to treat all graveyards. Before we camp there we have to ask permission. You can’t build a fire on it; you would have to build the campfire on a beach or away from where the sacred site is.

17. I know the First Nations have sacred ground. They would look at a place and survey it pretty good before they walk on it or walk around it. We still continue to do this today. I believe the Hatchery ought to have known that this site was a First Nations burial ground because of the large amount of clam midden present. I am outraged that the digging did not stop once human remains were unearthed.

18. Possessions belonging to the ancestors that were buried with them were taken from the gravesites and given to a museum in Victoria. There was one blade made out of bone, one anchor made out of rock, one arrowhead and many pieces of obsidian glass. It is a Coast Salish belief that you should not remove items that are buried with the dead because it belongs to the people that have passed on and they need it on their journey. Those possessions should be reburied with the people. Even if they were buried with gold we would not take the items because they belong to the people who have passed on. We equate the taking of possessions from the ancestors after they have passed with robbing the dead; those people who took the items are grave robbers.

19. It is a Coast Salish belief that there are consequences for disturbing graves; bad things will happen to you and your family. It is important to guard against this by showing respect to graves and the ancestors.

20. We, the Coast Salish, would not and do not treat anyone’s burial ground the way the Hatchery proposes. If we used a city graveyard for a sewage treatment site we would probably be put in jail.

21. It is imperative that Coast Salish gravesites are treated with respect and honour. It is unimaginable that our sacred sites can be treated with such wanton disrespect all in the name of the all-mighty dollar.

22. I strongly question how it is legal to desecrate any Coast Salish gravesite when it is clearly illegal to desecrate non-Native gravesites.

23. Using this sacred site as a sewage filtration system is the ultimate dishonour to the Coast Salish history, traditions and beliefs.

24. I make this affidavit in support of the Environmental Appeal Stay Application of Waste Management Approval AE-17356.

Affirmed before me this 27th day of )

November, 2003. )

)

)

_________________________________ ) ____________________________

A Commissioner for taking Affidavits ) AUGUST SYLVESTER

Within British Columbia

[www.farmfreshsalmon.org]

In an open letter to Jack Layton, Positive Aquaculture Awareness criticizes an NDP election promise that would put BC aquaculture out of business

CAMPBELL RIVER, BC, May 31, 2004

In an open letter to federal NDP leader Jack Layton who arrives in Vancouver tomorrow, the head of a Campbell River-based grassroots-group criticized an NDP election promise that would put BC's aquaculture sector and its thousands of workers out of business.

"This plank in the NDP election platform could have been devised by the
anti-aquaculture activists at the David Suzuki Foundation - it's that bad,"
said Positive Aquaculture Awareness President Laurie Jensen. "For the NDP to adopt such a platform without even so much as a consultation with hardworking BC coastal communities and First Nations is completely outrageous and unacceptable," Jensen said.

"As a responsible leader, the first thing Jack Layton needs to do when he
steps off the plane in Vancouver tomorrow is admit mistakes have been made and agree to change his anti-aquaculture approach because British Columbian Coastal residents deserve no less," said Jensen.

The federal NDP's election platform promises to "phase out current
(salmon-farming) operations and replace them with 'closed containment fish farms.'"

In an open letter to Layton, Jensen wrote, "the so-called 'closed
containment' idea has been proven impractical, uneconomic and environmentally preposterous. It will do nothing to protect BC's environment, wild salmon habitat or aquaculture employees."

"Layton's platform will stifle innovation in BC's sustainable aquaculture
industry and bury the sector in red-tape," said Jensen. "The NDP platform is based purely on erroneous assumptions provided by an activist movement bent on destroying the sector," Jensen added.

"If implemented, the NDP's anti-aquaculture platform will result in the
shutdown of BC's most promising and largest agricultural export, accounting for 15 per cent of BC's total agricultural production and contributing over $600 million to the BC economy," Jensen said.

A copy of the open letter follows:

May 31, 2004
Open Letter to NDP Leader Jack Layton

Dear Sir:

Re. NDP Releases its 2004 Election Platform
-------------------------------------------

Can British Columbians believe their ears?

BC's coastal communities are suffering real economic hardship while
salmon aquaculture tries to retain its position as one of the few bright
spots in an otherwise tough economic picture.

Now along comes an NDP election platform that promises to "phase out
current (salmon-farming) operations and replace them with 'closed
containment fish farms.'"

Mr. Layton, your close affiliation with Greenpeace (Greenpeace Canada's
most recent Executive Director Peter Tabuns is one of your party's
supposed 'star' candidates) has blinded you from seeing that the salmon
farming industry has been responsible for creating new, long-term and
well-paying jobs in hatcheries, on farms, and in fish processing plants
along our coast.

In fact, salmon farming is the single largest employer in the northern
Vancouver Island community of Port Hardy and in the Central Coast First
Nations community of Klemtu. Over 4000 jobs have been created. Farmed
salmon has become BC's largest agricultural export item, accounting for
15 per cent of BC's total agricultural production and contributing over
$600 million to the BC economy.

Instead of lending support to this highly sustainable industry and
fostering long-term economic growth on the BC coast, you and your BC
colleagues seem to have been doing everything in your power to destroy
the industry and the jobs of working people.

Your party's recently announced platform would bury the industry in
counter-productive red tape and would stifle innovation. Based on
erroneous assumptions provided by an activist movement bent on shutting
the sector down, the so-called "closed containment" idea has been proven
impractical, uneconomic and environmentally preposterous. It will do
nothing to protect BC's environment, wild salmon habitat or aquaculture
employees.

You need to realize that BC salmon farming, despite activist rhetoric,
is already a highly sustainable industry that takes pressure off wild
salmon stocks and provides consumers with a healthy, nutritious product
rich in heart-friendly Omega-3 fatty acids.

Is there room for improvement? Always. After all, sustainability is best
considered a work in progress, but your party's platform will take us in
the opposite direction.

This province's aquaculture industry is built on the hard work and
innovation of proud British Columbians, including First Nations.
Mr. Layton, your platform is an insult to these hard working people,
their families, and their communities.

Yours very truly,

Laurie Jensen, President, PAA
250-286-8802 (office), 250-830-7615 (cell) or www.farmfreshsalmon.org

For further information: Laurie Jensen, President, PAA, (250) 286-8802
(office), (250) 830-7615 (cell), or www.farmfreshsalmon.org

[farmfreshsalmon.org]

Despite growing opposition by some, there also is a growing number of First Nation communities that support farmed fish . . .

August 9, 2005
Malecites First Nation opens fish farm in Quebec. . .
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =5942#5942

- - - - - - -

Despite mounting evidence to contrary, activists continue malicious attacks against salmon farming, putting coastal communities at risk

CAMPBELL RIVER, BC, July 9, 2004

Despite growing scientific evidence showing salmon farming is sustainable, anti-aquaculture activists assembling in Alert Bay today are continuing their malicious attacks against the sector and endangering the livelihoods of thousands of hard working British Columbians.

"At a time when many other sectors are in steep decline on the Coast, the
growth of BC's salmon farming industry is providing great hope for communities and First Nations across coastal BC," said Laurie Jensen, president of the grassroots group Positive Aquaculture Awareness, based in Campbell River, BC.

"Salmon aquaculture employs people in coastal communities and First
Nations in such places as Campbell River, Klemtu, Alert Bay, Port Hardy, Fort Rupert, Port Edward, Kitkatla, Tofino and surrounding villages in Clayoquot Sound," said Jensen.

"The industry generates more than 4,000 jobs throughout the Coast," she
said.

"Yet in the face of mounting evidence showing salmon farms are
sustainable, these activists continue to spread their baseless allegations at
the expense of farm employees and their families in BC coastal communities," said Jensen.

The most detailed and rigorous study ever conducted in the Broughton
Archipelago, released earlier this year by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), found absolutely no evidence of a connection between salmon farms and wild sea lice infestations, despite numerous allegations by the activists.

The comprehensive DFO study which sampled 20,000 fish found 76 percent of the fish sampled were completely free of lice and even those that did have lice were generally healthy (sea lice are natural and salmon have survived with sea lice on them for millions of years).

"The DFO study, while it requires follow-up work, was conducted by expert
scientists and can not be dismissed, as the activists are attempting to do,
simply because it shows their allegations to be false," said Jensen.

"It's time these activists were held to account for the untruthful and
politically-driven claims that are damaging our communities and our families," she said.

For further information: Contact Laurie Jensen, President, PAA:
(250) 286-8802 (office), (250) 830-7615 (cell) or www.farmfreshsalmon.org; Ian
Roberts, (250) 830-8923 (cell)

-----------

BACKGROUND

Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation Salmon Farming Success Story

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... php?t=1410

Located in Klemtu, some 480 kilometres north of Vancouver on the BC central coast, the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation is a relatively small (718 hectares) and isolated community with no year-round road access. The on-reserve population of 460 people is predominantly young and growing, having doubled over the last 20 years. Moreover, this growth rate is
expected to continue.

For generations, the economy of the community was sustained by the commercial and food fisheries. Since the 1950s, however, the returns of
wild salmon have fallen dramatically, resulting in a severe loss of employment and leaving the community without a sustainable economic base

In response to this situation, the Kitasoo/Xaixais people chose to diversify their economy. They developed an economic revitalisation plan that
focused upon sustainable opportunities in tourism, forestry and aquaculture. The community decision to develop these sectors was
contingent upon maintaining the environmental, cultural and ecological values of their territory and protecting fish and wildlife habitats.

Maintaining a balance between these traditional values and the needs of their community for economic prosperity and sustainable employment is critical to success. In partnership with Marine Harvest Canada, a commercial salmon farm was developed in the Kitasoo/Xaixais territory.

In addition, through distance education, North Island College delivered practical aquaculture training to provide community members with the requisite skills. Today, salmon farming accounts for one-half of the local economy of the Kitasoo/Xaixais people and is a source of community pride.

In deciding to pursue aquaculture via a joint-venture agreement with
Marine Harvest Canada, the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation was adamant that the environmental integrity of their traditional territory not be compromised. They were particularly concerned that Marine Harvest's fish-farming activities might reduce the fisheries harvests for other community members. Consequently, the Kitasoo/Xaixais community retained final decisionmaking powers in all matters pertaining to environmental impacts and decisions, making it clear to Marine Harvest Canada that if the farm was found to be the cause of environmental degradation, it would be shut down without hesitation.

Today, the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation and Marine Harvest Canada operate three salmon farms that are certified under an ISO 14001 environmental program and are subject to extensive independent monitoring. After four years of operations, fisheries harvests have not
declined and the environmental integrity of the region remains intact. Chief Councillor and Band Manager Percy Starr of the Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation proudly claims that "no one should be fooled into thinking
that BC's Kitasoo First Nation had sold out and sacrificed any part of its environmental heritage in order to become part of the salmon-farming industry."

[admin]

August 10, 2004

Global Study Provides More Information about Potentially Harmful Contaminants in Farmed Salmon

http://www.salmonstudy.org

Building on a recent study showing higher levels of carcinogens in farmed salmon over wild, researchers analyzed levels of chemical flame retardants (known as PBDEs) in approximately 700 farmed and wild salmon (totaling 2 metric tons) collected from around the world to be representative of the salmon typically available to consumers.

The study found much higher levels of chemical flame retardants in farmed salmon compared to most wild salmon. The presence of PBDEs has rapidly increased in the human body over the last 20 years. Several of the substances have been associated with nervous system, reproductive, and endocrine system effects in laboratory animals and have been banned in Europe and the state of California.

Global Study Reveals Higher Levels of Potentially Harmful Flame Retardant Chemicals in Farmed Salmon than in Wild
Published Findings Build on Recent Study of High Levels of Carcinogens in Salmon

Bloomington, Indiana — A study released this week in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found much higher levels of some chemical flame retardants in farmed salmon compared to most wild salmon. The study concluded that, in spite of the heart healthy benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in all salmon, frequent consumption of farmed salmon is more likely than wild to boost levels of chemicals that researchers have found to be increasing rapidly in people's bodies.

Public health authorities are concerned about these substances, known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), because they have been associated in scientific studies with behavior and nervous system effects such as impaired learning and memory, reproductive effects, and endocrine system effects that could impair growth and development. The European Union and the state of California have banned several of these substances.

The Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the U.S.'s largest philanthropies, sponsored the study. Pew has sponsored major research on fisheries, including a number of widely reported recent studies on the deterioration of the marine environment.

The group of flame retardant chemicals is used in electronics, upholstery, and other consumer products and migrate from the environment into the food web when these products are disposed. The amounts of PBDEs detected in people and wildlife appear to have doubled in North America every four to five years since the 1970s, a pace unmatched by any other contaminant. Electronics companies including Sony and Toshiba and at least one major furniture maker, Ikea, have phased out PBDEs from their products.

The findings released this week build on a January study published in Science which found that farmed salmon contained significantly higher levels of cancer-causing PCBs, dioxins, and some pesticides than did wild salmon. That study concluded that concentrations of some contaminants were so high that more than one meal of farmed salmon per month could pose unacceptable cancer risks. The majority of salmon served in restaurants and found on grocery store shelves is farmed rather than wild.

Because government agencies and international health authorities have not set acceptable exposure levels for PBDEs, the authors did not identify any recommended consumption levels for salmon containing the chemicals. While the effects of PBDEs on human health are not nearly as well understood as the carcinogens found in farmed salmon, there is growing concern among scientists and many health authorities about the possible health impacts of exposure to PBDEs.

According to Ronald Hites, Distinguished Professor at Indiana University and lead researcher on the study, "PBDEs are structurally similar to PCBs, which have been linked to cancer and to neurological and developmental effects in humans. Even though no quantitative risk estimates have been done for PBDEs, public health experts are concerned because the concentrations of these substances in people have been increasing so rapidly."

While it’s difficult to make direct comparisons, the concentrations found in farmed salmon are similar to levels that have been measured in people in recent years, Hites says.

Largest Sampling Yet Published
The data on PBDE concentrations in farmed and wild salmon come out of the world's largest scientific sampling of salmon yet published in a recognized peer-reviewed journal. The study analyzed fillets from about 700 farmed Atlantic salmon and wild Pacific salmon. The farmed salmon was produced in each of the eight major farmed salmon producing regions in the world or purchased in 16 large cities in North America and Europe. The study's authors, six U.S. and Canadian researchers representing fields from toxicology to biology to statistics, selected salmon samples to be representative of the salmon typically available to consumers.

Salmon farmed in Europe were generally more contaminated with PBDEs than salmon farmed in North America. But North American farmed salmon were more contaminated than salmon farmed in Chile. Similarly, PBDE concentrations in salmon purchased from retail outlets in Europe — including Edinburgh and London — were generally higher than concentrations in salmon purchased in stores in North America — including Washington, D.C., New Orleans, Denver, and New York. Most of the salmon sold in European stores comes from European farms. Much more of the salmon sold in U.S. stores comes from Chile and Canada.

While wild salmon as a group were generally the least contaminated with PBDEs, PBDE concentrations were highest in wild Chinook from British Columbia and in farmed salmon from Scotland and Western Canada. The lowest concentrations of PBDEs were found in the other wild salmon and in farmed salmon from Chile and Washington State.

One unusual finding involved the relatively high PBDE concentrations in the wild Chinook samples. The authors found significant and unexpected differences in PBDE concentrations among the different species of wild salmon suggesting that different feeding behavior — for example, chinook tend to feed higher on the food chain — and other biological differences among the species could account for these differences.

Reason for Contamination
The authors concluded that the contamination problem is likely related to what farmed salmon are being fed. While most wild salmon eat a diverse diet of aquatic organisms from lower in the food chain, farmed salmon are fed a high fat diet containing a concentrated mixture of ground up fish and fish oil. Since chemical contaminants fish are exposed to during their lives are stored in their fat, the high fat farmed salmon food passes along more of these contaminants to the farmed salmon.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) serve as flame retardants in a wide variety of commercial and household products. Annual sales of PBDEs are around 70,000 metric tons. PBDEs likely migrate from the products in which they are used into the environment, up the food chain, and into the human body through the use and disposal of plastics and foam containing PBDEs. Found in air, water, fish, birds, marine mammals, and people, PBDEs are now ubiquitous, and the concentrations of these compounds have increased markedly over the last 20 years. The amounts of PBDEs in people and wildlife appear to have doubled in North America every four to five years since the 1970s, a pace unmatched by any other contaminant.

The authors conclude in their study that their results demonstrate the importance of labeling salmon as farmed and identifying the country of origin.

http://www.salmonstudy.org/faqs.html


What Consumers Can Do

While the health benefits associated with the omega-3 fatty acids in all salmon have been well documented, the authors suggest that consumers concerned about the levels of any contaminants they might be exposed to from farmed salmon have many options. Many other food sources of omega-3's do not contain carcinogens and PBDEs to the degree they now exist in farmed salmon. These alternatives include some wild salmon as well as other fish that are not raised on contaminated feed.

Beginning next month, supermarkets will be required to label salmon as "farmed" or "wild" and indicate their country of origin under a 2002 law. Salmon purchased in restaurants and fish markets are not covered by this law. Consumers should be aware that the word "Fresh" on the label does not mean the salmon is wild-caught from the ocean. And any salmon labeled "Atlantic" in the U.S. is almost always farmed. Salmon labeled "Atlantic" in other countries is most likely farmed.

The annual global production of farmed salmon has increased 40 times during the last two decades — making inexpensive salmon available to consumers year-round. Between 1987 and 1999, salmon consumption increased at an annual rate of 14% in the European Union and 23% in the U.S. Since 2000, over half of the salmon eaten globally has been farmed, coming primarily from fish farms in Northern Europe, Chile, Canada, and the United States.

BACKGROUND
http://www.salmonstudy.org/background.html

[salmonoftheamericas.com]

Salmon Flame Retardant Study Shows No New Data; Consumers Should Not Be Alarmed

http://www.salmonoftheamericas.com

Aug. 10, 2004

The recently published study on PBDEs by Hites, et al. confirms previously published studies by Health Canada (2004), Schecter (2004), Luksemburg (2004), Ohta (2003) and others, including Salmon of the Americas (2004) on PBDE levels in farmed and wild salmon. These studies show very low levels of PBDEs in both farmed and wild salmon.

Public health professionals agree that while PBDEs in the environment are
a growing concern and must be dealt with, the trace PBDE amounts in both wild and farmed salmon found in the studies, including the Hites, et al. study, do not present a health hazard. They advise that consumers should not limit consumption of either wild or farmed salmon.

The Hites' study authors state that PBDEs identified in this study have
not been found to be carcinogenic, but that limited studies show some non-
cancer effects observed in mice.

Public health experts agree that PBDEs have not been found to be carcinogenic and generally acknowledge that data is very limited. Public health professionals do not believe that the low levels found in salmon pose any significant risk and the benefits of eating salmon clearly outweigh the small risk which may be present.

The results in each of the PBDE studies referenced are similar. The only
significant difference among them is that Hites is the only study which found extremely low levels in wild salmon. These findings are partly due to the fact that Hites included chum and pink wild salmon in the sampling scheme - two species which are typically lower in PBDEs than farmed and other species of wild salmon, and are rarely available fresh outside of the immediate area where caught (British Columbia or Alaska).

The highest PBDE levels in the Hites study were found in wild salmon.
This fact and information from other studies is at odds with the authors'
conclusion that consumers should consume wild over farmed salmon. While the average PBDE content is generally lower in wild than farmed (due in part to the incorrect inclusion of pink and chum wild salmon) in all studies but the Hites study, the difference is slight. The average of the Ohta (2003) and Health Canada (2004) studies which included farmed and wild salmon show 1.6 parts per billion (ppb) for farmed and 0.7 ppb for wild.

Compared to PBDE levels in other fish, the levels in farmed and wild
salmon as found in the Hites study are low. For instance, the 2003
Environmental Working Group study found average levels of 17 ppb in bass and 22 ppb in perch in San Francisco Bay. Other studies show similar levels in a variety of marine and freshwater fish.

How PBDEs enter the body is not fully known. It is likely that routes
other than food consumption account for significant intake. These routes of entry include dermal exposure from furniture and inhalation from airborne PBDE residues, which are ubiquitous in computers and other electrical equipment.

Studies have shown PBDE levels of parts per million (ppm) in airborne dust. This amount is a thousand times greater than found in any food product.

While it is regrettable that any salmon, or any other foods, contain
contaminants, it is important to note that, as with other organic
contaminants, the total intake of PBDEs from farmed salmon is only a fraction of what it is from other foods.

If reducing PBDE intake is a goal, then consumers should eat less amounts
of food which contribute the most PBDEs in the diet. That reduction will not include reducing intake of farmed salmon (or wild), both of which are rich sources of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids.

Web site: http://www.salmonoftheamericas.com

For further information: Alex Trent, Salmon of the Americas,
+1-888-511-3070, ed@salmonoftheamericas.com, or Sybil Jones,
+1-609-897-0800, sjones@byjones.com, for Salmon of the Americas

[farmedanddangerous.org]

Wisdom and Responsibility – Fish Farms in the Broughton

by President & Board of Directors
Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission
August 12th, 2004

Port McNeill, B.C. Wisdom says," be cautious; ask questions." Responsibility says," be bold; show leadership and find workable solutions to resolve issues." We the leaders of the KTFC (Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission) have heeded the "caution" of WISDOM and the "encouragement" of our RESPONSIBILITY as leaders by deciding to work towards finding workable solutions to the issue of fish farms in our territories in the Broughton Archipelago in a way that would address the concerns of our members about the environment and our aboriginal rights while offering them opportunities for a better and prosperous future at the same time."

The KTFC members include Mamalilikulla-Qwe-Qwa-Sot-Em First Nation, Da'naxda'xw/Awaetlala First Nation, Gwawaneuk Tribe and Tlatlasikwala First Nation. Fish farms in the Broughton have been around for more than 20 years. During this time this issue has become one of the most divisive issues of our times. We have First Nations and non-First Nations communities that are actively participating in the aquaculture industry and fully support the existence and operations of these fish farms while we have some First Nations that do not support these fish farms.

The First Nations that are opposed to these fish farms have never conducted any thorough and collaborative research to study the "true" impact of these fish farms on the marine environment and the wild stocks. Several studies that have been conducted by some environmental groups, in our opinion are not objective as these groups conducted these studies with pre-determined results to prove their point.

As responsible leaders we believe that it would be imprudent for us to reach a conclusion based upon the findings of studies that can hardly be described as unbiased and/or independent. Some of these groups release the findings of their studies in segments to create the impression that these are the findings of more than one study. We would like to challenge these groups to release all the findings of a study at once. We believe that British Columbians whether aboriginals or non-aboriginals are smart enough to handle all the information. We are not interested in games; we don't want to play with the future of our members; we want to find solutions that are realistic and achievable.

We believe that in all fairness studies should be conducted with an open mind with no pre-determined results to make sure that we do not mislead our members and/or the general public. While we strongly believe in our aboriginal rights within our territories, we also realize that there are several non-aboriginal communities within our traditional territories. Many of our neighbours, friends and relatives are also non-aboriginals and we sincerely believe that no matter what we do either as aboriginals or as non-aboriginals, it affects us all.

Therefore, after years of struggling with this issue very recently we decided that we must take the path of cooperation and reconciliation in order to find workable solutions to address our concerns about the environment while providing economic opportunities for our members at the same time.

We are fully aware that this road that we have chosen to lead us to reconciliation and cooperation with our First Nation and non-First Nation neighbours, governments and the industry will have lots of obstacles, we are confident that with our commitment and determination, and with support of our members, neighbours and friends we will overcome all the obstacles. There are many who raise questions but there are very few who take the time and the risks to find answers. We have decided that enough with asking questions; it is time that we set out to find answers. We don't live in an ideal world. Therefore, we may never find perfect solution to the issues that we have but we are sure going to try our best to find solutions that are achievable and that will bring people closer to each other, not push them further apart.

We also believe that by choosing this path of reconciliation and cooperation we are neither surrendering our aboriginal rights nor are we abandoning our values. We are simply acknowledging the fact that we are not alone in this world and that it is not wise to expect simple solutions to complex issues. In an ideal world, one day we will wake up and all the problems will be gone but in the real world we have to work hard towards finding long lasting solutions; solutions that take everyone's interests and concerns into account. Solutions that are achieved at the expense of others are not real solutions; these create bitterness and divisions. Solutions that are reached through cooperation are real solutions; these solutions bring peace and harmony among people.

As responsible leaders, we also believe that we owe it to our future generations to resolve this issue in a realistic manner so that our children, grand children and their children will not have to go through confrontation and instability. We would like to see them live in peace with themselves and their neighbours; aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike.

To those who are using the politics of division by exploiting this issue of fish farms to create differences within the First Nations and between the First Nations and their non aboriginal neighbours, we say," STOP right now; stop using us for gaining your own agenda. We are fully capable of speaking for ourselves. Let us work to find achievable solutions that everyone can live with."

KTFC (Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission)
2291 Mine Road Place
P.O. Box 10
Port McNeill, BC V0N 2R0
Phone: (250) 956-2214 Fax: (250) 956-2217

- - - - - - -

Namgis Chief Bill Cranmer

Fish farms are damaging B.C. waters

August 13, 2004

ALERT BAY, B.C. - The Kwicksutaineuk-Ah-Kwa-Mish, the Namgis and the
Tsawataineuk are three First Nations that lie in the heart of the Broughton
Archipelago in British Columbia. These are our traditional territories,
located amongst a series of beautiful islands between northern Vancouver
Island and the mainland of British Columbia. We have never ceded our
territory through treaty or any other arrangements with the government of
Canada.

There are two salmon farm companies that operate within our waters -- one is Stolt Sea Farms, a Norwegian corporation; the other is a Canadian company, Heritage Aquaculture. There are 27 open-net pen fish farms in the inlets and bays of our territory, the greatest density of fish farms anywhere on the coast of British Columbia.

Each of these fish farms is filled with tens of thousands of fish that are
fed medicated feed by the ton. Trapped in their cramped pens, such fish are confined to a living environment that breeds disease and encourages sea lice. The fish regularly escape their pens, which are inadequately
monitored. The salmon-farming industry as it now operates has turned some of our waters into what are essentially floating feedlots.

The Broughton Archipelago is a prime rearing area for all fin fish species
and many that spawn in the surrounding inlets. This ecologically sensitive
area cannot co-exist with a foreign species such as Atlantic salmon.
Thousands of farmed Atlantic salmon have died from numerous disease
outbreaks throughout the last few years, and we strongly suspect the
diseases are having a detrimental impact on our wild stocks.

The shellfish, clams in particular, are being made unhealthy. Their once
beautiful grey shells are turning black and their meat is turning to mush. A
similar phenomenon is occurring in the local crab stocks. The herring stocks haven't returned to their previous abundance. The kelp surrounding the pens are dead or dying, which suggests other underlying problems. Healthy kelp is a sign of a flourishing marine environment. If the kelp is dying, one can imagine that the seabed underneath the pens is facing the same dire consequences.

Fish farming has hurt the local environment and left us with many questions.

We still don't know, for example, what the consequences are for the eagles who are feeding on the diseased and chemical-ridden farmed Atlantic salmon that are being dumped into local landfills.

At a recent demonstration against open net fish farms, we were accompanied by representatives of Greenpeace and we again witnessed salmon smolts with numerous sea lice on their little bodies. The effects on pink salmon are, of course, more severe as they are much smaller than the chum, sockeye, coho and spring salmon.

Pink salmon smolts are approximately two inches long as they leave the river on their perilous trip to the ocean to return two years later. They cannot survive if numerous sea lice are attached to their tiny bodies, and they are not surviving. In 2003, pink salmon returns were estimated to be 3.5 million. However, only an estimated 125,000 returned.

We have been publicly expressing our concerns about these dangers since the first fish farm appeared in our territories over 20 years ago. Governments can't plead ignorance: Years ago, a Canadian delegation travelled to Norway, Scotland and Ireland and returned with a report on the devastation caused by the open net fish farms.

Political leaders in Victoria and Ottawa need to come to terms with the
evidence collected over the years from open net fish farms and their
detrimental impact on marine habitats. Unfortunately, they are more apt to
hide behind what they say is confidential corporate information regarding
chemicals fish farms are using to control sea lice, diseases, fish feed
additives and how many tons of fish feed are being dumped into our
territories daily.

What politicians should be doing is clear:
- Both Prime Minister Paul Martin and B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell must take immediate steps to remove these destructive open net fish farms from our territories.
- They should also begin a process of rehabilitating the resources and the
environment already damaged by these fish farms.
- Mr. Martin and Mr. Campbell need to launch a complete evaluation of the
scientific expertise, or lack thereof, in Canada's Department of Fisheries
and Oceans and other government fishery-approval agencies, both provincial and federal, which allowed open pen fish farms to be operated in the first place.

The Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council and its member First Nations are stating, as we have done on other occasions, that our Aboriginal rights are being affected by what we believe are illegal activities stemming from open net fish farms in our territories. We want that activity to stop.

-----------------------

View photos from the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council First Nations and Greenpeace No Fish Farms protest July 9-10, 2004

http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/gallery/view ... me=album02

[Guest]

Government of Canada Assures Public That Farmed and Wild Salmon Are Safe to Eat

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy,Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

August 18, 2004

The Government of Canada has jumped into the fray over fish farms and fears about their safety.

Despite recent research that suggests risks, Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Fisheries and Oceans Minister Geoff Regan reassured Canadians that both wild and farmed fish sold in Canada are safe to eat.

A study published in the American journal Environmental Science and Technology, found on average higher levels of polybrominated diphenyl ethers PBDEs - chemical fire retardants, in farmed salmon than in wild salmon.

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =3701#3701

The authors of the study concluded that frequent consumption of farmed salmon is more likely to boost exposure to PBDEs than wild salmon.

Health Minister Dosanjh, former premier of BC where a farmed salmon controversy flourishes, assured Canadians that - "Health Canada has been monitoring the levels of contaminants, such as PBDEs, PCBs and others, in many kinds of foods, including fish for many years. Based on the information currently available, the levels of PBDEs detected in fish sold in Canada do not pose a risk to human health".

The government says, there are no studies that link PBDE levels contained in food to any human health effects.

Previous studies conducted on experimental animals, which had shown adverse effects related to PBDEs, involved exposure to levels that were over a million times higher than what is currently found in foods, including fish.

"Data currently available on exposure to PBDEs through food consumption in Canada, concluded that levels found in food do not represent a health risk."

Fisheries Minister Regan added, "I want to assure Canadians that the farmed salmon industry is carefully regulated by the Government of Canada for human health and environmental impacts. Both the farmed salmon and wild salmon industries provide safe and extremely healthy products for Canadians".

Studies completed in 2004 on fish and seafood and the Total Diet Study concluded that intake of PBDEs in the Canadian diet does not represent a health risk.

"Salmon continues to be a safe and healthy food choice as part of a balanced diet comprised of a wide variety of healthy foods. Salmon is also an important source of nutrients, particularly omega-3 fats, which have been shown to contribute to a healthy diet."

For more information on Fish and PBDEs

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/cs- ... _fish.html or

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/infocus/ ... 0817_e.htm

-----------------

BACKGROUND

FOOD SAFETY AND CONTAMINANTS IN SALMON
August 17, 2004
The Pew Charitable Trust, based in the United States, has funded numerous studies examining contaminants in farmed and wild salmon across the world. Each study will present conclusions that are drawn from results derived from the same data set of farmed and wild salmon. The first study – comparing levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in wild and farmed salmon – was published in the journal Science on January 9, 2004. The second study – comparing levels of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in wild and farmed salmon – was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology on August 10, 2004.

Fish and seafood constitute an important part of a healthy and balanced diet for Canadians. However these and other foods sometimes contain environmental contaminants, usually at very low levels. As a result, Health Canada undertakes regular surveillance activities to monitor the level of contaminants in foods. These surveillance reports, or food surveys, provide current estimates of the exposure to these contaminants and are a valuable tool to improve the risk assessment and to develop the appropriate strategies to manage the risks associated with these contaminants. The 2002 Fish and Seafood Survey indicated that current PCB and PBDE levels tested in several types of seafood do not pose a risk to human health.

Fish and other food products are monitored by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to ensure any traces of contaminants are within acceptable levels as set by Health Canada.

PCBs

Small amounts of PCB contaminants are found in the environment all over the world. Traces of PCBs are found in our food as well as in our bodies. The short term key in dealing with this fact is to ensure products entering the food supply are not harmful to human health and are within acceptable limits that have been established by Canada and the international community.

Although the impression left by the Pew study was that there are more contaminants (PCBs) in farmed salmon than in wild salmon, the levels of contaminants found are less than 1/80th of the acceptable levels established by Health Canada. Therefore, consuming farmed salmon does not pose a health risk to consumers. Salmon also remains a good source of important nutrients, including omega-3 fats, which contribute to a healthy diet.

PBDEs

Based on similar chemical properties to PCBs, PBDEs are regarded as being environmentally persistent and bioaccumulative, meaning that they accumulate in body tissues. Measurements in animals and humans have indicated that levels have been increasing during the past 10-15 years. Recent dietary surveys from European countries and Canada have identified food as one possible route of exposure to PBDEs, however it is suggested that sources other than food contribute significantly to human exposure. These sources include some consumer products (when used as additive flame retardants), air, water, and dust particles.

While there is some limited evidence suggesting that the concentrations of PBDEs are higher in farmed fish and seafood products, Health Canada’s opinion is that current levels of PBDEs found in any retail food do not pose a health risk to Canadians.

Aquaculture

Salmon was by far the most important species produced by Canadian aquaculturists in 2002, accounting for 81% of the value of the industry at $520.7 million. Farmed Atlantic salmon in BC and New Brunswick were worth $502.1 million combined.

At DFO, the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture (PSA) aims to create the policy and regulatory climate that enables the industry to produce the best possible products under the safest and most environmentally-friendly conditions.

- - - - -

Read about concerns that farmed fish are a threat to wild salmon . . .

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =3780#3780


Read about the recent research regarding concerns about chemicals in farmed fish . . .

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =3701#3701